China Continues to Rule at the (50th Anniversary) 2009 International Math Olympiad
RichAsianKid
10th of July to 22th of July 2009. An unprecedented 104 countries
participated, along with 565 contestants (506 males, 59 females).
Results are now out. And here they are:
http://www.imo-official.org/year_country_r.aspx?year=2009
Top 5 (out of 104 countries):
1. China
2. Japan
3. Russia
4. South Korea
5. North Korea
(USA came in 6th)
Two comments:
(1) China vs India Revisited
Results are obviously population size dependent. A small population
country like Iceland can't be compared to Germany and should not be
assumed to be congentially stupid if they don't measure up. Which brings
us back to that forlorn and forgone raging question earlier this decade
on the giga-country duel: India vs China. Here are the results:
China is ranked #1
India is ranked #28
Never mind this is already an established pattern of the IMO where India
has proven itself to chronically underachieve. But ranks 2-5 in 2009 are
still occupied by countries with population sizes much much much smaller
than India - Japan, Russia, and the Koreas.
Now, we often hear how India might be mediocre on average (due to
whatever excuse) but their best (even if they scrape by some razor thin
margin) are nonetheless still supposedly so very very uber-bright. From
IMO evidence that assertion is seriously wanting year after year. Like I
said, it's an established pattern.
And if top Indians all defected to the US, shouldn't the US be ranked
much higher by now? Or if they've defected, shouldn't they return to
India to help out their own kind etc etc. Afterall Taiwan with a
population of 23 million -- a population roughly equivalent to combined
2 Indian cities Mumbai and Delhi -- still manages to secure a rank of
11th. India as a whole country didn't.
(And guys, don't get the idea India ain't serious about this - even if
some might choose to blame it on stylistic presentation instead:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4854266.cms )
(2) Let's examine the scores of how individual teams did.
Countries send a team of six of their best and brightest to maximize
winning chances. So let's look at who gets the gold medals (awarded to
the top 1/12 [or 91.7%ile plus]), silver medals (awarded to the next
2/12 highest bracket), bronze medals (awarded to the next 3/12), and
honorable mentions (those who get at least full marks on one single
question out of six). Like most things real-life, medal allocation is
done by percentile; and by definition half the contestants will *not*
get any medals.
Well. China is the ONLY nation out of 104 where 6 out of 6 participants
were awarded *gold* medals. The *only* nation in the world where their
team secured 100% solid gold.
Sui Generis? Maybe. Followups as follows: Japan has 5 golds and 1
bronze, Russia has 5 golds and 1 silver, South Korea has 3 gold and 3
silver, North Korea has 3 gold, 2 silver, 1 bronze.
And what does this giga-country India have? 0 gold, 3 silver, 2 bronze.
And the leftover got an honorable mention.
But then again even Taiwan secured 1 gold and 5 silver....
* * *
PS - RAK's tribute to the only 2 contestants out of 565 who had perfect
marks and who scored at the 100th% percentile:
(a) Makoto Soejima of Japan
(b) Dongyi Wei of China
P. Rajah
> The 50th International Math Olympiad took place in Bremen, Germany, from
> 10th of July to 22th of July 2009. An unprecedented 104 countries
> participated, along with 565 contestants (506 males, 59 females).
>
> Results are now out. And here they are:
>
> http://www.imo-official.org/year_country_r.aspx?year=2009
>
> Top 5 (out of 104 countries):
>
> 1. China
> 2. Japan
> 3. Russia
> 4. South Korea
> 5. North Korea
>
> (USA came in 6th)
>
> Two comments:
>
> (1) China vs India Revisited
>
> Results are obviously population size dependent.
No, they are not. 6 participants are sent from each country.
> A small population
> country like Iceland can't be compared to Germany and should not be
> assumed to be congentially stupid if they don't measure up. Which brings
> us back to that forlorn and forgone raging question earlier this decade
> on the giga-country duel: India vs China. Here are the results:
>
> China is ranked #1
> India is ranked #28
And Israel is ranked #46. The Islamic Republic of Iran is ranked ahead
of Canada, the UK, Australia and Sweden. In 2003, Bulgaria was ranked
ahead of China. In 2005, Iran ranked #4. What's your point?
> Never mind this is already an established pattern of the IMO where India
> has proven itself to chronically underachieve. But ranks 2-5 in 2009 are
> still occupied by countries with population sizes much much much smaller
> than India - Japan, Russia, and the Koreas.
You are assuming that only the best from each country is sent, rather
than the best from among those who choose to(or in the case of PRC,
_made_ to) participate. So much for your critical thinking skills.
[rest of blowhard crap deleted]
Demorising
> The 50th International Math Olympiad took place in Bremen, Germany, from
> 10th of July to 22th of July 2009. An unprecedented 104 countries
> participated, along with 565 contestants (506 males, 59 females).
> (2) Let's examine the scores of how individual teams did.
> Well. China is the ONLY nation out of 104 where 6 out of 6 participants
> were awarded *gold* medals. The *only* nation in the world where their
> team secured 100% solid gold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mathematical_Olympiad
The only country to have its entire team score perfectly on the IMO
was the United States, which won IMO 1994 when it accomplished this,
coached by Paul Zeitz. This accomplishment has never been repeated and
earned a mention in TIME Magazine.
-----
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981185,00.html
If the United States sends six kids to the International Mathematical
Olympiad in Hong Kong, where a perfect individual score is 42, and
together they score 252, does the country have reason to cheer?
RichAsianKid
> RichAsianKid wrote:
>
>> The 50th International Math Olympiad took place in Bremen, Germany, from
>> 10th of July to 22th of July 2009. An unprecedented 104 countries
>> participated, along with 565 contestants (506 males, 59 females).
>>
>> Results are now out. And here they are:
>>
>> http://www.imo-official.org/year_country_r.aspx?year=2009
>>
>> Top 5 (out of 104 countries):
>>
>> 1. China
>> 2. Japan
>> 3. Russia
>> 4. South Korea
>> 5. North Korea
>>
>> (USA came in 6th)
>>
>> Two comments:
>>
>> (1) China vs India Revisited
>>
>> Results are obviously population size dependent.
>
> No, they are not. 6 participants are sent from each country.
>
You obviously won't qualify for the IMO by that type of reasoning. In
fact you won't qualify for even an elementary school competition by that
type of reasoning. Look, if you have a thousand people, the top 6 is 6
out of a 1000. If you have a million people, the top 6 will be 6 out of
a million. If you have a billion people, the top 6 will be 6 out of a
billion. Of course, I'm assuming (a) the country finds the best and the
brightest to go and that (b) the vetting process is reasonably accurate
(as participants are often selected from national olympiads/winners
etc). I think those are fair assumptions - why would any country want to
send second-tier students to the IMO - just to tarnish their rep?
>> A small population
>> country like Iceland can't be compared to Germany and should not be
>> assumed to be congentially stupid if they don't measure up. Which brings
>> us back to that forlorn and forgone raging question earlier this decade
>> on the giga-country duel: India vs China. Here are the results:
>>
>> China is ranked #1
>> India is ranked #28
>
> And Israel is ranked #46. The Islamic Republic of Iran is ranked ahead
> of Canada, the UK, Australia and Sweden. In 2003, Bulgaria was ranked
> ahead of China. In 2005, Iran ranked #4. What's your point?
India consistently score below China. Here are the numbers throughout
the years of participation:
China ranking
1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 8 4 32
India ranking
28 31 25 35 36 14 15 9 7 14 18 7 15 14 14 16 15 21 10 17 25
There's just no comparison for these two giga-sized countries.
Speaking of Israel, let's compare that to similar population sized Hong
Kong, i.e. about 7 million people.
Hong Kong is ranked #29
Israel is ranked #46 as you said
7 million people - that's not even the size of Mumbai or Delhi!
Oh well. At least you can take comfort that India with over a billion
people ranks higher than Hong Kong. But 1.1 billion vs 7 million ain't a
very symmetric comparo. ;)
>
>
>> Never mind this is already an established pattern of the IMO where India
>> has proven itself to chronically underachieve. But ranks 2-5 in 2009 are
>> still occupied by countries with population sizes much much much smaller
>> than India - Japan, Russia, and the Koreas.
>
> You are assuming that only the best from each country is sent, rather
> than the best from among those who choose to(or in the case of PRC,
> _made_ to) participate. So much for your critical thinking skills.
>
> [rest of blowhard crap deleted]
Oh I answered that one above.
But wait, hold on here, are you suggesting that many Indian students
(and others) are apathetic or just plain don't like math and choose not
to participate? Wooooooooo, all that hidden untapped talent, all so
hidden all so well-cloaked and....all so invisible. ;)
RichAsianKid
Dear Demorising:
You embarrassed yourself by being desperate quoting some
flash-in-the-pan 15 years ago. The following numbers will bring you
up-to-speed:
(1) Let's compare the overall rankings between China and the US
throughout the years:
China
1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 8 4 32
US (with a longer participation history)
6 3 5 5 2 2 3 3 2 3 10 3 4 2 11 1 7 2 5 3 5 6 5 1 2 4 2 3 1 5 2 1 3 3 2
China has recently consistently scored above the US year after year.
(2) Let's tally the totals shall we?
http://imo-official.org/results_country.aspx?column=awards&order=desc
China, in spite of having first participated in 1985 (24 participations
in total), have 107 gold medals in total.
USA, on the other hand, only has 82 gold medals in total in spite of
having participated since 1974 (35 participations)!!
Can you imagine that? I'm just shocked shocked shocked beyond belief!!
(3) People often forget this, but how many Chinese are there on the
American team, and how many Americans are on the Chinese team? 3 out of
the 6 competitors on the US team in 2009 -- HALF the team!! -- have very
very non-anglicized Chinese names:
Qinxuan Pan
Delong Meng
Wenyu Cao
The Chinese team are all 100% Chinese.
Dongyi Wei
Yanlin Zhao
Jiaoyang Huang
Bo Lin
Fan Zheng
Zhiwei Zheng
Once again, the IMO at the elite level looks and sounds like a very
Chinese event to me.....
Cheers,
RichAsianKid
P. Rajah
Taking your idiotic assertions at face value, then China _must_ win
every year, because it has the world's largest population. To not
win(which has happened several times in the history of the IMO) would,
in your logic, indicate that the Chinese are not as smart as they should
be in proportion to their population size. Furthermore, even someone as
intransigently xenophobic as you might know that the focus applied by
your authoritarian government to certain areas cannot be copied by
democratic countries answerable to their people.
The US men's soccer team beat Spain, ranked the #1 team in FIFA, despite
the fact that almost nobody plays men's soccer in the US, in contrast to
the soccer-crazy Europeans. What does that prove? Last year, China lost
to the Iraqis in the qualifiers, lost to an under-nourished team that
was patched together in a war zone. China, btw, is 108th in FIFA
rankings. Not a nice place to be for a country with almost a quarter of
the globe's population. Surely you can produce a dozen world-class
soccer players?
>>> A small population
>>> country like Iceland can't be compared to Germany and should not be
>>> assumed to be congentially stupid if they don't measure up. Which brings
>>> us back to that forlorn and forgone raging question earlier this decade
>>> on the giga-country duel: India vs China. Here are the results:
>>>
>>> China is ranked #1
>>> India is ranked #28
>>
>> And Israel is ranked #46. The Islamic Republic of Iran is ranked ahead
>> of Canada, the UK, Australia and Sweden. In 2003, Bulgaria was ranked
>> ahead of China. In 2005, Iran ranked #4. What's your point?
>
> India consistently score below China. Here are the numbers throughout
> the years of participation:
>
> China ranking
> 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 6
> 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 8 4 32
>
> India ranking
> 28 31 25 35 36 14 15 9 7 14 18 7
> 15 14 14 16 15 21 10 17 25
>
> There's just no comparison for these two giga-sized countries.
In 1985, China ranked 32nd. Were the Chinese dumb in 1985? In 1987, when
the Romanians were in 1st place, were the Chinese not as smart as
Romanians(or to use your "population size dependent" argument, many
times less smart than Romanians)?
> Speaking of Israel, let's compare that to similar population sized Hong
> Kong, i.e. about 7 million people.
>
> Hong Kong is ranked #29
> Israel is ranked #46 as you said
>
> 7 million people - that's not even the size of Mumbai or Delhi!
So what? The Israelis/Jews are among the best theoretical and applied
mathematicians in the world. They would kick Chinese ass any day.
> Oh well. At least you can take comfort that India with over a billion
> people ranks higher than Hong Kong. But 1.1 billion vs 7 million ain't a
> very symmetric comparo. ;)
Why are you so hung up on India? Unlike China, India is a multi-party
democracy, and has been unable to make educational mandates in the way
China has done. India's official literacy rates are bogus, and perhaps
70% of the population is functionally illiterate, unable to do much more
than read a place-name or write their own names.
I can understand that you are in a pissing contest with Indian netters,
but don't make dumbass assertions about intelligence based on
high-school competitions.
>>> Never mind this is already an established pattern of the IMO where India
>>> has proven itself to chronically underachieve. But ranks 2-5 in 2009 are
>>> still occupied by countries with population sizes much much much smaller
>>> than India - Japan, Russia, and the Koreas.
>>
>> You are assuming that only the best from each country is sent, rather
>> than the best from among those who choose to(or in the case of PRC,
>> _made_ to) participate. So much for your critical thinking skills.
>>
>> [rest of blowhard crap deleted]
>
> Oh I answered that one above.
>
> But wait, hold on here, are you suggesting that many Indian students
> (and others) are apathetic or just plain don't like math and choose not
> to participate? Wooooooooo, all that hidden untapped talent, all so
> hidden all so well-cloaked and....all so invisible. ;)
The Spelling Bee here in the US is dominated by the tiny Indian-American
community, who have been champions in 7 of the last 11 years, as
compared to zero Chinese-Americans. Are Chinese-Americans
spelling-challenged, by your logic? How about, say, Italian-Americans,
who vastly outnumber the Indians? Like I said, blowhard crap!
Demorising
> Demorising wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 4:30 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> The 50th International Math Olympiad took place in Bremen, Germany, from
> >> 10th of July to 22th of July 2009. An unprecedented 104 countries
> >> participated, along with 565 contestants (506 males, 59 females).
>
> >> (2) Let's examine the scores of how individual teams did.
>
> >> Well. China is the ONLY nation out of 104 where 6 out of 6 participants
> >> were awarded *gold* medals. The *only* nation in the world where their
> >> team secured 100% solid gold.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mathematical_Olympiad
>
> > The only country to have its entire team score perfectly on the IMO
> > was the United States, which won IMO 1994 when it accomplished this,
> > coached by Paul Zeitz. This accomplishment has never been repeated and
> > earned a mention in TIME Magazine.
>
> > -----
>
> >http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981185,00.html
>
> > If the United States sends six kids to the International Mathematical
> > Olympiad in Hong Kong, where a perfect individual score is 42, and
> > together they score 252, does the country have reason to cheer?
>
> Dear Demorising:
>
> You embarrassed yourself by being desperate quoting some
> flash-in-the-pan 15 years ago.
My point is the U.S. is the ONLY nation in history where 6 out of 6
participants were awarded "platinum" medals (perfect marks). The
*only* nation in the world where their team secured 100% solid
platinum. This is the world record and can never be bested. It would
be interesting for you to research how close others have come.
harmony
presumably, no? mor elike basketball contest. i do not believe this says
anything about the people of any country. in basketball usa dominates most
times, but lately other coutnries have started to beat usa in basketball. in
other words, this is not cast in genes.
"RichAsianKid" <RichAs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h6oab4$h7d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Penang
> why would any country want to send second-tier students
> to the IMO - just to tarnish their rep?
In the case of Malaysia, they only send THEIR kids, yes, the Malay
kids, despite the fact that the Malay kids are inferior to the Indian
and the Chinese kids
Penang
In any test, you bound to come up with a fluke result or two
Plus, USA has participated in the competition since 1975 (25 years
counting this year), they have more than enough experience to
anticipate what's coming
China started much later
Penang
shows another interesting fact ---- the male / female ratio
Look at New Zealand, for example
Their male / female ratio is almost equal, but how they score?
Then look at all the top scorers, and notice their male / female ratio
RichAsianKid
Hold on hold on Penang, don't forget the data which shreds demorising's
claim:
China has 31 perfect scorers since 1985
USA only 19 perfect scorers since 1974.....
and that 19 includes the string of six in 1994. (!!)
Ouch!
That is, China beat the US in sheer numbers of "platinum medalists" i.e.
perfect scorers (vs gold medalists who are "merely" 92%ile plus) *in
spite of* starting 11 years later.
Wow.
RichAsianKid
You want to talk about perfect scorers? Let's just do that!! As I've
posted on this thread on what you call "platinum" scorers:
China has 31 perfect scorers (perfect marks) since 1985 (24
participations)
USA only 19 perfect scorers (perfect marks) since 1974 (35
participations)
Wow!
And those 19 already includes the string of six in 1994!!
China beat the US in sheer numbers of perfect scorers (by
definition 100%ile) *in spite of* starting 11 years later.
Like I said, that 1994 year is merely flash-in-the-pan. If it's such a
pattern how come the US doesn't keep up?
Told you you were desperate when quoting 1994.
--------
And my other points which you so conveniently omitted still hold - for
all posters to read:
RichAsianKid
Er, why is India's performance so *consistently* shitty? Perhaps you can
enlighten us. If India and China are roughly equal, you should expect
them swapping 1st and 2nd places more or less as the years go by. Yet
the majority of the time India is not ranked over #10. OTOH, much
smaller countries like Russia, Korea (only 50 million people), Japan,
Taiwan (only 23 million), USA etc consistently ranked higher than India.
You will have to ask yourself that question: why is INdia's performance
so consistently poor?
And though you might not have intended, I actually agree with you on
your point of human inequality. We are NOT equal, unlike what utopians
think. Your soccer example demonstrates human *inequality*. In track and
field for example, from a quote: "men from a single tribe earn
three-fourths of Kenya's medals. The three million Kalenjin make up only
one tenth of Kenya's population, and just .0005 percent of the world's.
Yet these highlanders from the Great Rift Valley win about three-eighths
of international men's distance running prizes. Within this region, the
half million people of the Nandi district win one fifth of the globe's
medals." You'll see Indians or Chinese or Aryans (1936 Berlin) can't
compete with blacks in 100m no matter how much training they got.
Likewise you'll see that cognitive distribution is unequal around the globe
and there are bushmen and others who will never have the brains of
Chinese or Koreans or Japanese. And in a post-industrial info-based
world, I'd much rather think fast than to run fast, but that's my own
preference.
>
>
>>>> A small population
>>>> country like Iceland can't be compared to Germany and should not be
>>>> assumed to be congentially stupid if they don't measure up. Which
>>>> brings
>>>> us back to that forlorn and forgone raging question earlier this decade
>>>> on the giga-country duel: India vs China. Here are the results:
>>>>
>>>> China is ranked #1
>>>> India is ranked #28
>>>
>>> And Israel is ranked #46. The Islamic Republic of Iran is ranked
>>> ahead of Canada, the UK, Australia and Sweden. In 2003, Bulgaria was
>>> ranked ahead of China. In 2005, Iran ranked #4. What's your point?
>>
>> India consistently score below China. Here are the numbers throughout
>> the years of participation:
>>
>> China ranking
>> 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 6
>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 8 4 32
>> India ranking
>> 28 31 25 35 36 14 15 9 7 14 18 7
>> 15 14 14 16 15 21 10 17 25
>> There's just no comparison for these two giga-sized countries.
>
> In 1985, China ranked 32nd. Were the Chinese dumb in 1985? In 1987, when
> the Romanians were in 1st place, were the Chinese not as smart as
> Romanians(or to use your "population size dependent" argument, many
> times less smart than Romanians)?
>
And what are the excuses year after year for India ranking so
pathetically low? If China is "dumb" a couple years, India is dumb
*every year*!
Really, there may be sampling biases or vetting errors for sure, but you
really have to ask yourself about India's constant and consistent
low-achieving pattern.
>> Speaking of Israel, let's compare that to similar population sized Hong
>> Kong, i.e. about 7 million people.
>>
>> Hong Kong is ranked #29
>> Israel is ranked #46 as you said
>>
>> 7 million people - that's not even the size of Mumbai or Delhi!
>
> So what? The Israelis/Jews are among the best theoretical and applied
> mathematicians in the world. They would kick Chinese ass any day.
Earlier on you quoted that Israel is ranked low (you're the one who
brought up Israel, not me), are you saying that Israelis/Jews are better
than Indians in math also *even* they have scored low?
>
>> Oh well. At least you can take comfort that India with over a billion
>> people ranks higher than Hong Kong. But 1.1 billion vs 7 million ain't
>> a very symmetric comparo. ;)
>
> Why are you so hung up on India? Unlike China, India is a multi-party
> democracy, and has been unable to make educational mandates in the way
> China has done. India's official literacy rates are bogus, and perhaps
> 70% of the population is functionally illiterate, unable to do much more
> than read a place-name or write their own names.
>
> I can understand that you are in a pissing contest with Indian netters,
> but don't make dumbass assertions about intelligence based on
> high-school competitions.
>
Re-read the OP. India and China have roughly similar populations which
piques my interest, and if top talent were equally distributed in math,
you would not see this lop-sided result year after year.
As for intelligence, since you brought it up on this thread, hear this
excerpt, start at 2'28 if you have no time of this 9 minute excerpt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11uVdvxc9ac
I'd never say these numbers are carved in stone; I do think there is
something going on here about convergence of evidence that hysterical
shrieking will not erase.
>
>>>> Never mind this is already an established pattern of the IMO where
>>>> India
>>>> has proven itself to chronically underachieve. But ranks 2-5 in 2009
>>>> are
>>>> still occupied by countries with population sizes much much much
>>>> smaller
>>>> than India - Japan, Russia, and the Koreas.
>>>
>>> You are assuming that only the best from each country is sent, rather
>>> than the best from among those who choose to(or in the case of PRC,
>>> _made_ to) participate. So much for your critical thinking skills.
>>>
>>> [rest of blowhard crap deleted]
>>
>> Oh I answered that one above.
>>
>> But wait, hold on here, are you suggesting that many Indian students
>> (and others) are apathetic or just plain don't like math and choose
>> not to participate? Wooooooooo, all that hidden untapped talent, all
>> so hidden all so well-cloaked and....all so invisible. ;)
>
> The Spelling Bee here in the US is dominated by the tiny Indian-American
> community, who have been champions in 7 of the last 11 years, as
> compared to zero Chinese-Americans. Are Chinese-Americans
> spelling-challenged, by your logic? How about, say, Italian-Americans,
> who vastly outnumber the Indians? Like I said, blowhard crap!
Easy. Spelling is not specifically measured by IQ
while math (arithmetic) is.
This is not to say spelling is not correlated with IQ; I do think
however it's at best an indirect variable; it is a very specific skill,
probably more dependent on previous exposure and memory -- even a parrot
can be trained for example -- than solving de novo complex math problems
from scratch as presented in the IMO.
Demorising
I wanted to talk about the perfect team. The IMO is a team
competition. It is not an attempt to find the best student, or an
attempt to find the highest national average. Using the IMO own
criteria for success, the 1994 American 'dream team' is the perfect
team.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mathematics_Competitions
"The United States Math Team of 1994 is the only team ever to achieve
a perfect score (all six members earned perfect marks), and is
colloquially known as the 'dream team'."
P. Rajah
Don't have a response for the soccer issue, do you?
> Perhaps you can
> enlighten us. If India and China are roughly equal, you should expect
> them swapping 1st and 2nd places more or less as the years go by. Yet
> the majority of the time India is not ranked over #10. OTOH, much
> smaller countries like Russia, Korea (only 50 million people), Japan,
> Taiwan (only 23 million), USA etc consistently ranked higher than India.
> You will have to ask yourself that question: why is INdia's performance
> so consistently poor?
I have never claimed that China and India are equal, or even roughly
equal. China is in a much stronger position, and will dominate Asia in
this century.
From 1949 on, Taiwan way outpaced China in development. I am willing to
bet also that if China were to have participated in a Math Olympiad
prior to 1975, it would have been soundly trounced. Putting that in the
context of your claim that math ranking= national intelligence, then
mainland Chinese were less intelligent than most other countries, and
especially than Taiwanese. Now, before you get your Jockeys all twisted
up, examine my remarks. Why did Taiwan perform so well as opposed to
mainland Chinese?
Now to address your India question. China has a literacy rate of 91%
versus India's 61%. And even so, I question that standard by which
India's literacy rate is computed, which bumps up the purported literacy
rate. Next, China was able to curb its runaway population growth with a
one-child-per-couple fiat, which obviously makes it easier to allocate
resources now. China's population would easily have exceeded 2 billion
by now. India, on the other hand, being a democratic country, could not
impose such a law, wherefore its population has doubled in the past 30
years, straining the available resources far more so than China.
China was also fortuitous in that, back in the early 70s, Henry
Kissinger and George H. W. Bush, working on behalf of American
capitalists, talked the communist Chinese government into a scheme that
transferred American manufacturing to a low-wage, low-regulation base in
China. If you recall, that was also when, as a quid pro quo, PRC
replaced ROC as the Chinese representative at the UN and on the Security
Council, and the US withdrew from Vietnam. American advisers "guided"
the Chinese government on long-term domestic and industrial policy
issues. The reasons behind China's rise are so complex and convoluted
that I couldn't possible enumerate them in detail here.
> And though you might not have intended, I actually agree with you on
> your point of human inequality. We are NOT equal, unlike what utopians
> think. Your soccer example demonstrates human *inequality*. In track and
> field for example, from a quote: "men from a single tribe earn
> three-fourths of Kenya's medals. The three million Kalenjin make up only
> one tenth of Kenya's population, and just .0005 percent of the world's.
> Yet these highlanders from the Great Rift Valley win about three-eighths
> of international men's distance running prizes. Within this region, the
> half million people of the Nandi district win one fifth of the globe's
> medals." You'll see Indians or Chinese or Aryans (1936 Berlin) can't
> compete with blacks in 100m no matter how much training they got.
> Likewise you'll see that cognitive distribution is unequal around the globe
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c3nkc6
>
> and there are bushmen and others who will never have the brains of
> Chinese or Koreans or Japanese. And in a post-industrial info-based
> world, I'd much rather think fast than to run fast, but that's my own
> preference.
Someone who can run really fast can also, contrary to your apparent
understanding, be a very intelligent human being. Athleticism and
intelligence are not mutually exclusive. Have you thought of the fact
that the Kenyans have a miserable educational system, after decades of
independence? Would a "super-intelligent" Chinese man win a competition
to track an animal the way a Bushman can?
Are you going to answer my question, or merely continue with rhetoric?
Did the Chinese become more intelligent between 1985 and now, and if so,
how? According to the Chinese government, the IQ was just as high in 1985.
> Really, there may be sampling biases or vetting errors for sure, but you
> really have to ask yourself about India's constant and consistent
> low-achieving pattern.
I don't agree with that. Since the opening up of the economy, India has
done much better than before, despite the handicaps of endemic
corruption and the legacy of widespread illiteracy and weak
infrastructure. Remember that China did not become a manufacturing power
overnight. It took decades after its own liberalisation, and that with
an authoritarian government backed by cash from the richest country in
the world.
>>> Speaking of Israel, let's compare that to similar population sized Hong
>>> Kong, i.e. about 7 million people.
>>>
>>> Hong Kong is ranked #29
>>> Israel is ranked #46 as you said
>>>
>>> 7 million people - that's not even the size of Mumbai or Delhi!
>>
>> So what? The Israelis/Jews are among the best theoretical and applied
>> mathematicians in the world. They would kick Chinese ass any day.
>
> Earlier on you quoted that Israel is ranked low (you're the one who
> brought up Israel, not me), are you saying that Israelis/Jews are better
> than Indians in math also *even* they have scored low?
Yes, they are better than anyone else. After all, they practically
invented applied mathematics. High school competitions do not
demonstrate the capabilities of the adult population.
>>> Oh well. At least you can take comfort that India with over a billion
>>> people ranks higher than Hong Kong. But 1.1 billion vs 7 million
>>> ain't a very symmetric comparo. ;)
>>
>> Why are you so hung up on India? Unlike China, India is a multi-party
>> democracy, and has been unable to make educational mandates in the way
>> China has done. India's official literacy rates are bogus, and perhaps
>> 70% of the population is functionally illiterate, unable to do much
>> more than read a place-name or write their own names.
>>
>> I can understand that you are in a pissing contest with Indian
>> netters, but don't make dumbass assertions about intelligence based on
>> high-school competitions.
>>
>
> Re-read the OP. India and China have roughly similar populations which
> piques my interest, and if top talent were equally distributed in math,
> you would not see this lop-sided result year after year.
You hear, but you don't listen. China has, however it has done it, done
a better job of bringing education to all its people, as well as curbing
runaway population growth. It is therefore able to harness more of its
children's intelligence in these contests which, btw, are state-run in
China unlike in most other countries. I wonder if you would put up the
best and brightest high school students of Shangba in Guangdong province
against the best and brightest of Shimla in Himachal Pradesh in India.
As an aside, I recall the glory days of East Germany's athletic prowess,
achieved through a state-run program to "glorify" the state. Now,
deprived of the single-minded devotion to "sports medicine" aka "stuff
them to the gills with steroids", where are the East Germans today?
> As for intelligence, since you brought it up on this thread, hear this
> excerpt, start at 2'28 if you have no time of this 9 minute excerpt:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11uVdvxc9ac
>
> I'd never say these numbers are carved in stone; I do think there is
> something going on here about convergence of evidence that hysterical
> shrieking will not erase.
The Chinese numbers are from around 1980 on, so I wouldn't trust those
numbers, given the inherent lack of impartiality of authoritarian
governments.
But a point to note in the video:
Rushton says that the IQ of Indians in places like England, Holland,
South Africa and Fiji is comparable to that of Indians in India. If that
is the case, why are Indians in all these places outperforming the
locals in terms of academic and financial achievements? The same is true
of the US, where the Indian community ranks highest in affluence.
http://www.littleindia.com/news/132/ARTICLE/4664/2009-03-04.html
Using a voluntary contest as a measure of national intelligence is
remarkably stupid. If the US were an authoritarian country, and the
education system was instructed to locate, train and enter the best
students in the IMO, the results would be quite different indeed. Wait
until the CPC no longer runs China.
One last word: you must be aware that the IQ of lower-scoring groups can
be bumped up as much as 30% with training.
P. Rajah
> As for intelligence, since you brought it up on this thread, hear this
> excerpt, start at 2'28 if you have no time of this 9 minute excerpt:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11uVdvxc9ac
>
> I'd never say these numbers are carved in stone; I do think there is
> something going on here about convergence of evidence that hysterical
> shrieking will not erase.
I hadn't realised earlier that your link was to a speech given by a
known racist at a "conference" sponsored by a white-supremacist
journal(see name on podium).
So, here's a rebuttal to Rushton:
http://www.euvolution.com/euvolution/blackwhite.html
RichAsianKid
If the IMO is about team competition you should welcome my point (1) of
team summary rankings below which I posted twice already and which I now
quote again:
Compare the overall rankings between China and the US throughout the years:
China
1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 6 1
2 1 1 2 1 1 2 8 4 32
US (with a longer participation history)
6 3 5 5 2 2 3 3 2 3 10 3 4 2
11 1 7 2 5 3 5 6 5 1 2 4 2 3 1
5 2 1 3 3 2
Don't you just love it demorising? Whether you look at it from a 'team'
point of view or your fav 'perfect scorer' point of view or the more
traditional 'gold medal' point of view China still beats the US in spite
of its late start.
RichAsianKid
And when you resort to cutting RichAsianKid's reply off like some ADD
kid you expose yourself to us all! Thank you.
Maybe Europe and Asia would have been different if Germany or Japan
didn't open up the Russian Front or Pearl Harbor. You're implying all
the 'what ifs' here, but sorry there is no such thing in history about
'what ifs', there are only winners and losers and it is not necessarily
the "right" that wins, it is the winner that's *right*. The greatest
crime in the annals of history of the Nazis?? They lost the war.
Then you committed the same fallacy as everyone namely just because
little baby Einstein can be starved to death does NOT mean everyone will
become little baby Einstein with proper nutrition. Just because
malnutrition can stunt height does not mean everyone will be equally
tall or 7 feet tall. 2005 SAT amazingly reveals black US kids who hail
from families making more than $100K actually score *lower* than white
US kids who hail from families making $10K. Environmental enrichment
don't quite necessarily patch up biological substrate deficiency.
As for worldwide summary of intelligence results, I've posted this also
if you're even paying attention:
Now, compare China and Japan. They have essentially similar IQ. Yet
based on the largest adult net worth study released couple years ago by
the EIU, an average adult Japanese is worth 69 times - 69 times!! --
that of an average Chinese in China. Similarly, an average adult Hong
Kong citizen is worth 66 times that of an average Chinese in China (all
in US exchange rate http://i17.tinypic.com/42vv8ev.jpg ) Yet why is
it that their IQs are so similar? Taiwan as you said or implied is so
much more developed and richer than China also, why is it their IQs are
so similar? Likewise with Koreans. China, if anything has a
socioeconomic status way closer to the 5 South Asian nations: India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal compared to Taiwan or Japan or
Korea. *Yet* China's IQ achievements are way more congruent with its NE
Asian neighbors than her S Asian neighbors, and the difference is most
obvious between China and India when population size is roughly
corrected for. Likewise Bangladesh is no Japan, Sri Lanka is no Taiwan.
When you posit socioeconomic status as a cause for intelligence and
education or literacy, it may well be the reverse that is the case. If
Johnny doesn't do well at school and hates math, it might well be
because he sucks so bad in the first place and that's why he comes
around to hate it.
>
>
>> And though you might not have intended, I actually agree with you on
>> your point of human inequality. We are NOT equal, unlike what utopians
>> think. Your soccer example demonstrates human *inequality*. In track and
>> field for example, from a quote: "men from a single tribe earn
>> three-fourths of Kenya's medals. The three million Kalenjin make up only
>> one tenth of Kenya's population, and just .0005 percent of the world's.
>> Yet these highlanders from the Great Rift Valley win about three-eighths
>> of international men's distance running prizes. Within this region, the
>> half million people of the Nandi district win one fifth of the globe's
>> medals." You'll see Indians or Chinese or Aryans (1936 Berlin) can't
>> compete with blacks in 100m no matter how much training they got.
>> Likewise you'll see that cognitive distribution is unequal around the
>> globe
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/c3nkc6
>>
>> and there are bushmen and others who will never have the brains of
>> Chinese or Koreans or Japanese. And in a post-industrial info-based
>> world, I'd much rather think fast than to run fast, but that's my own
>> preference.
>
>
> Someone who can run really fast can also, contrary to your apparent
> understanding, be a very intelligent human being. Athleticism and
> intelligence are not mutually exclusive. Have you thought of the fact
> that the Kenyans have a miserable educational system, after decades of
> independence? Would a "super-intelligent" Chinese man win a competition
> to track an animal the way a Bushman can?
>
Oh no one is saying brain and brawn are mutually exclusive at all. In
fact I'd be the first one to say that's not the case! I am merely saying
in the 21st century post-industrial info-based economies brain power
seems to go further than brawn power. Why in the 21st century would you
rather run 100 m in 11 or 12 s as opposed to a scoring 99th percentile
on the SAT or LSAT or MCAT or GMAT. Why?
And of course of course it is *possible* for a black or African to have
an IQ of 120 or higher much like it's possible to have 6 or 7 feet tall
women. The question is statistical probability and frequency and you
will *still* not find distribution curves all identical across
populations in spite of all the social engineering all the 1960s
equality chanting. The smartest chimpanzee probably knows how to follow
instructions more than some cerebral palsy vegetable kid.
Does a single tall woman prove that women are taller than men in
general? Of course not!! Same with China's results vs the US. I wouldn't
go so far to say China's the man and the US's the bitch, but at least I
advise you not to miss the forest for the trees.
>> Really, there may be sampling biases or vetting errors for sure, but
>> you really have to ask yourself about India's constant and consistent
>> low-achieving pattern.
>
> I don't agree with that. Since the opening up of the economy, India has
> done much better than before, despite the handicaps of endemic
> corruption and the legacy of widespread illiteracy and weak
> infrastructure. Remember that China did not become a manufacturing power
> overnight. It took decades after its own liberalisation, and that with
> an authoritarian government backed by cash from the richest country in
> the world.
So America somehow supports or at least colludes with China? That's
a new interesting one!!!
So here. "Since the opening up of the economy, India has done much
better than before" you wrote. Explain this now -- why did China
overtake and diverge from India even *more* after the early 90s:
http://i32.tinypic.com/2nut6iw.jpg
>
>
>>>> Speaking of Israel, let's compare that to similar population sized Hong
>>>> Kong, i.e. about 7 million people.
>>>>
>>>> Hong Kong is ranked #29
>>>> Israel is ranked #46 as you said
>>>>
>>>> 7 million people - that's not even the size of Mumbai or Delhi!
>>>
>>> So what? The Israelis/Jews are among the best theoretical and applied
>>> mathematicians in the world. They would kick Chinese ass any day.
>>
>> Earlier on you quoted that Israel is ranked low (you're the one who
>> brought up Israel, not me), are you saying that Israelis/Jews are
>> better than Indians in math also *even* they have scored low?
>
> Yes, they are better than anyone else. After all, they practically
> invented applied mathematics. High school competitions do not
> demonstrate the capabilities of the adult population.
If true then you'll certainly appreciate that lurking powerful
explanatory power of IQ not less but even more: do you know that Ash
Jews (not all Jews but Ash Jews) registered some of the highest
ethnic/religious IQ scores around the world. And now you're telling us
Jews are **also** such great mathematicians? Wow!! Does that not again
illustrate the importance of intelligence, and thus the convergence of
India's low IQ AND low math accomplishment or social outcome.
What you're harping on to all of us here is that some external
environment or agency like some government is always at fault, the same
same blame-game that we hear all the time aka modern western liberalism,
not taking responsibility, we're all victims of society etc etc not much
different from how people are 'oppressed' as in East Germany or China or
elsewhere etc. Well then now I ask you: democracy which India is so so
so very proud of. "People rule" afterall. And what are you suddenly
telling us here? You start blaming your shitty Indian government. Sorry
that's just not convincing at all. Indians in their democracy *chose*
their government. They have no excuse to hate it. They wanted it. That's
why they voted for it no matter how imperfect. That's why they chose it
out of their wisdom. They have no absolutely no excuse to cry
inefficiency or weasel out or make excuses of 'oppression' or
blame-game. None. And to now say suddenly totalitarian China has done a
better job because it can harness their citizens talents better? No,
that sounds like totalitarian double-talk to me.
>
>
>> As for intelligence, since you brought it up on this thread, hear this
>> excerpt, start at 2'28 if you have no time of this 9 minute excerpt:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11uVdvxc9ac
>>
>> I'd never say these numbers are carved in stone; I do think there is
>> something going on here about convergence of evidence that hysterical
>> shrieking will not erase.
>
> The Chinese numbers are from around 1980 on, so I wouldn't trust those
> numbers, given the inherent lack of impartiality of authoritarian
> governments.
>
> But a point to note in the video:
> Rushton says that the IQ of Indians in places like England, Holland,
> South Africa and Fiji is comparable to that of Indians in India. If that
> is the case, why are Indians in all these places outperforming the
> locals in terms of academic and financial achievements? The same is true
> of the US, where the Indian community ranks highest in affluence.
>
> http://www.littleindia.com/news/132/ARTICLE/4664/2009-03-04.html
>
And Rushton also wrote this:
http://vdare.com/rushton/070926_indians.htm
The more interesting question is if Indians are so successful overseas
why do they still insist on making a mess of their own country?
You're now claiming democracy whether US +/- India is inefficient to
locate talent???? Wow, even I wouldn't have thought of that (seriously).
If this is your last world - think deeper as RichAsianKid says. India
had a wonderful caste system - people are NOT equal. Why ditch Indian
historical heritage for some meaningless modern Western 1960s rhetoric
of equality?
Think outside the box.
RichAsianKid
WAIT!!! Is Mr. Rajah resorting to an ad hominem? Crying out racist or
white-supremacist!! Wow!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
If not, tell us why.
Why would you Mr. Rajah even think bushmen alive today or Mbuti Pygmies
alive today has the same identical intelligence as Chinese, Japanese or
(woooo........) Jews? Why would you think that?
Why would you think all populations equally intelligent all round the
globe?
Tell us why please!!!!
Demorising
This is how I rank the teams:
1. USA 1994 252 pts. (world record)
2. Romania 1987 250 pts.
3. Germany 1987 248 pts.
4. USSR 1991 241 pts.
5. PRC 1992 240 pts.
6. PRC 1989 237 pts.
fruitella
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Its been mathematically proven that the people with the smallest penis
are on the top 5 position of that list.
Don't make me post the proof.
rst0wxyz
> P. Rajah wrote:
> > RichAsianKid wrote:
>
> > Don't have a response for the soccer issue, do you?
>
> And when you resort to cutting RichAsianKid's reply off like some ADD
> kid you expose yourself to us all! Thank you.
>
> > I have never claimed that China and India are equal, or even roughly
Doesn't this tell you the IQ test is geared toward the whites rather
than the actual intelligence of a person?
> > Someone who can run really fast can also, contrary to your apparent
> > understanding, be a very intelligent human being. Athleticism and
> > intelligence are not mutually exclusive. Have you thought of the fact
> > that the Kenyans have a miserable educational system, after decades of
> > independence? Would a "super-intelligent" Chinese man win a competition
> > to track an animal the way a Bushman can?
>
> Oh no one is saying brain and brawn are mutually exclusive at all. In
> fact I'd be the first one to say that's not the case! I am merely saying
> in the 21st century post-industrial info-based economies brain power
> seems to go further than brawn power. Why in the 21st century would you
> rather run 100 m in 11 or 12 s as opposed to a scoring 99th percentile
> on ...
Penang
Please, please post
P. Rajah
Where did I cut off your reply? The rest is right here. If your mean
that I posted a comment right after your first sentence, yes, that is
so. I did it to highlight the fact that you were not addressing my
question with regard to Chinese physical inferiority vis-a-vis the
starving Iraqis.
So their losing the war was a greater crime than the barbaric
extermination of millions of Jews, Gypsies, communists and others? You
are truly pathetic!
> Then you committed the same fallacy as everyone namely just because
> little baby Einstein can be starved to death does NOT mean everyone will
> become little baby Einstein with proper nutrition. Just because
> malnutrition can stunt height does not mean everyone will be equally
> tall or 7 feet tall. 2005 SAT amazingly reveals black US kids who hail
> from families making more than $100K actually score *lower* than white
> US kids who hail from families making $10K. Environmental enrichment
> don't quite necessarily patch up biological substrate deficiency.
Of course, you've corrected for variables, right??!! Families making
$10k don't send their kids to college. They don't even have enough money
to buy food. But that said, you seem to be getting your "information"
from white racist sources. The actual claim is that black kids from
affluent backgrounds score lower than _white_ kids from poorer
backgrounds. "Affluent" does not mean generations of wealth, it simply
means people who are _currently_ making a certain sum of money. And
white families making $10k cannot, as I said, send their kids to
college, so I doubt that this is the demographic being compared. Add to
that the fact that primarily black neighbourhoods are historically
disadvantaged in terms of educational and social resources.
> As for worldwide summary of intelligence results, I've posted this also
> if you're even paying attention:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c3nkc6
>
> Now, compare China and Japan. They have essentially similar IQ. Yet
> based on the largest adult net worth study released couple years ago by
> the EIU, an average adult Japanese is worth 69 times - 69 times!! --
> that of an average Chinese in China. Similarly, an average adult Hong
> Kong citizen is worth 66 times that of an average Chinese in China (all
> in US exchange rate http://i17.tinypic.com/42vv8ev.jpg ) Yet why is
> it that their IQs are so similar? Taiwan as you said or implied is so
> much more developed and richer than China also, why is it their IQs are
> so similar? Likewise with Koreans. China, if anything has a
> socioeconomic status way closer to the 5 South Asian nations: India,
> Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal compared to Taiwan or Japan or
> Korea. *Yet* China's IQ achievements are way more congruent with its NE
> Asian neighbors than her S Asian neighbors, and the difference is most
> obvious between China and India when population size is roughly
> corrected for. Likewise Bangladesh is no Japan, Sri Lanka is no Taiwan.
> When you posit socioeconomic status as a cause for intelligence and
> education or literacy, it may well be the reverse that is the case.
When you posit alleged IQ results as the cause for socio-economic
status, you fail to explain why China has remained a third-world country
for so long.
> Johnny doesn't do well at school and hates math, it might well be
> because he sucks so bad in the first place and that's why he comes
> around to hate it.
You are so hung up on math because you can't find any other metric that
serves your purpose, other that the purported IQ figures, which are
questionable.
Here's a report that ranks China below 7 European countries. Note that
the 100 IQ attributed to China comes from a Chinese survey for Beijing,
and was not adjusted. Do you suppose peasants all across China have the
same IQ level as Beijing's urbanites?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#National_IQ_estimates
Oddly enough, the >105 IQ figure now being widely touted for China in
general is higher than the Beijing figure, and much higher than two
other studies. It makes one wonder how and why that is being done.
Why would anyone want to climb a mountain without oxygen, or go around
the world in a sailplane? Because it's challenging, something you seem
to think does not exist outside of mathematics. As for the Kenyans, why
do you suppose they outrun other Africans? After all, they should also
be just as capable, right?
> And of course of course it is *possible* for a black or African to have
> an IQ of 120 or higher much like it's possible to have 6 or 7 feet tall
> women. The question is statistical probability and frequency and you
> will *still* not find distribution curves all identical across
> populations in spite of all the social engineering all the 1960s
> equality chanting. The smartest chimpanzee probably knows how to follow
> instructions more than some cerebral palsy vegetable kid.
And the IQ of a Beijing resident is in all probability much higher than
a peasant from Gansu, who is also technically Chinese.
I'd say you are the one missing the forest, being unable to see beyond
the trees of high school competitions.
>>> Really, there may be sampling biases or vetting errors for sure, but
>>> you really have to ask yourself about India's constant and consistent
>>> low-achieving pattern.
>>
>> I don't agree with that. Since the opening up of the economy, India
>> has done much better than before, despite the handicaps of endemic
>> corruption and the legacy of widespread illiteracy and weak
>> infrastructure. Remember that China did not become a manufacturing
>> power overnight. It took decades after its own liberalisation, and
>> that with an authoritarian government backed by cash from the richest
>> country in the world.
>
> So America somehow supports or at least colludes with China? That's
> a new interesting one!!!
American capitalism does, and that's no secret. I was in an upscale
men's store the other day, and I saw a designer golf shirt priced at
$138. It didn't seem much different from other quality shirts I've seen
priced at $40, so I looked at the label. It said "Made in China". Do you
think it would have killed the designer to spend $5 having the shirt
made in the US, rather than the $1 or less it costs in China? Of course
not, but that would be $4 less per piece in his pocket, and something
that is not in the least reflected in the retail price. That is the
greed of capitalism that has moved American manufacturing from the US to
China.
Nope, not "new interesting", just "old hat", made in China, of course.
> So here. "Since the opening up of the economy, India has done much
> better than before" you wrote. Explain this now -- why did China
> overtake and diverge from India even *more* after the early 90s:
> http://i32.tinypic.com/2nut6iw.jpg
I've told you before: China had a jump start, it had the backing of
western capitalists, and most importantly(and the main reason why the
western capitalists backed it), an authoritarian government that
dictated wages, work rules and environmental policy, and banned labour
protests of any kind. India, on the other hand, besides being 20 years
late to the party, had no US backing, had shaky coalition governments,
an over-abundance of workers' unions run by political parties(not the
least of which are run by the Beijing-backed Marxist-Communists),
runaway population growth and other issues. That India has progressed at
all is a miracle in itself. Over the years, I have noted that
BusinessWeek, the WSJ and others have repeatedly hyped Beijing's
"pro-business" environment, and only mentioned India when there was
something either insignificant or negative. Only Thomas Friedman of the
NYT had consistently positive views on India.
>>>>> Speaking of Israel, let's compare that to similar population sized
>>>>> Hong
>>>>> Kong, i.e. about 7 million people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hong Kong is ranked #29
>>>>> Israel is ranked #46 as you said
>>>>>
>>>>> 7 million people - that's not even the size of Mumbai or Delhi!
>>>>
>>>> So what? The Israelis/Jews are among the best theoretical and
>>>> applied mathematicians in the world. They would kick Chinese ass any
>>>> day.
>>>
>>> Earlier on you quoted that Israel is ranked low (you're the one who
>>> brought up Israel, not me), are you saying that Israelis/Jews are
>>> better than Indians in math also *even* they have scored low?
>>
>> Yes, they are better than anyone else. After all, they practically
>> invented applied mathematics. High school competitions do not
>> demonstrate the capabilities of the adult population.
>
> If true then you'll certainly appreciate that lurking powerful
> explanatory power of IQ not less but even more: do you know that Ash
> Jews (not all Jews but Ash Jews) registered some of the highest
> ethnic/religious IQ scores around the world. And now you're telling us
> Jews are **also** such great mathematicians? Wow!! Does that not again
> illustrate the importance of intelligence, and thus the convergence of
> India's low IQ AND low math accomplishment or social outcome.
And where are the Jews in the IMO which is, after all, the basis for
your claim of racial superiority?
It is a fact that it is much, much harder to have consensus in a
democratic environment rather than top-down authoritarian regimes such
as that in your country. And India's multi-party, multi-ethnic,
multi-lingual, multi-religious plurality only compounds the
difficulties. That is known, and your refusal to acknowledge it only
accentuates your blind bias.
>>> As for intelligence, since you brought it up on this thread, hear
>>> this excerpt, start at 2'28 if you have no time of this 9 minute
>>> excerpt:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11uVdvxc9ac
>>>
>>> I'd never say these numbers are carved in stone; I do think there is
>>> something going on here about convergence of evidence that hysterical
>>> shrieking will not erase.
>>
>> The Chinese numbers are from around 1980 on, so I wouldn't trust those
>> numbers, given the inherent lack of impartiality of authoritarian
>> governments.
>>
>> But a point to note in the video:
>> Rushton says that the IQ of Indians in places like England, Holland,
>> South Africa and Fiji is comparable to that of Indians in India. If
>> that is the case, why are Indians in all these places outperforming
>> the locals in terms of academic and financial achievements? The same
>> is true of the US, where the Indian community ranks highest in affluence.
>>
>> http://www.littleindia.com/news/132/ARTICLE/4664/2009-03-04.html
>>
>
> And Rushton also wrote this:
>
> http://vdare.com/rushton/070926_indians.htm
>
> The more interesting question is if Indians are so successful overseas
> why do they still insist on making a mess of their own country?
Because the system in India is a hodge-podge of pluralism and legacy
inefficiencies from the British. It needs to be reformed, yes, but the
very hindrances that slow India's progress also stymie reform. It's a
catch-22 situation.
How many times do I have to tell you that the US government, unlike
China, cannot mandate that schools force their best math students to
compete in the math olympiad? Beijing can produce athletes, biologists
and astronauts by mandate.
> If this is your last world - think deeper as RichAsianKid says.
Why do you speak of yourself in the third person? It indicates a
megalomaniacal condition.
> India
> had a wonderful caste system - people are NOT equal. Why ditch Indian
> historical heritage for some meaningless modern Western 1960s rhetoric
> of equality?
>
> Think outside the box.
Think outside of authoritarianism, you'd be surprised by what you find.
P. Rajah
I'm not surprised that, as a racist yourself, you tout a racist's point
of view that coincides with your own. Rushton is a fringe "academic",
and few if any mainstream social scientists agree with him.
RichAsianKid
Your own ranking is interesting but does not compare with IMO ranking
results from their own website:
http://www.imo-official.org/results_country.aspx?column=awards&order=desc
or
http://www.imo-official.org/results.aspx
Comment 1: Over the last ten years, the Chinese *team* consistently
ranked higher than the US *team* in every single meet.
Comment 2: World record? "China is the only nation that has achieved an
all-members-gold IMO multiple times (9 times in total, including years
1992, 1993, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2009)." - from Wikipedia
RichAsianKid
By same token does not this tell you white-derived IQ tests (which SAT
correlates with) are biased against whites in favor of Asians?
Or this one more recently:
(Don't forget "Asians" already include stupid SE Asians and PIs)
RichAsianKid
Then where is all the *preponderance* of 'reputable' data that show
blacks having equal or higher intelligence compared to whites, or
Indians having equal or higher intelligence compared to Chinese,
Japanese, or Jews? Where is it?
RichAsianKid
And if you don't behave like you have ADD (or do you have it) and you
hadn't cut off the reply you would also have read:
"And though you might not have intended, I actually agree with you on
your point of human inequality. We are NOT equal, unlike what utopians
think. Your soccer example demonstrates human *inequality*. In track and
field for example, from a quote: "men from a single tribe earn
three-fourths of Kenya's medals. The three million Kalenjin make up only
one tenth of Kenya's population, and just .0005 percent of the world's.
Yet these highlanders from the Great Rift Valley win about three-eighths
of international men's distance running prizes. Within this region, the
half million people of the Nandi district win one fifth of the globe's
medals." You'll see Indians or Chinese or Aryans (1936 Berlin) can't
compete with blacks in 100m no matter how much training they got.
Likewise you'll see that cognitive distribution is unequal around the
globe."
As I posted on a separate thread, the 2006 U.S. Census Bureau estimated
that only about *1.0* percent of the modern U.S. population is of
American Indian or Alaska Native descent. Imagine that. Once upon a
time, it was 100%. The state-by-state percentages are listed below for
your reference:
Alaska - 13.1%
New Mexico - 9.7%
South Dakota - 8.6%
Oklahoma - 6.8%
Montana - 6.3%
North Dakota - 5.2%
Arizona - 4.5%
Wyoming - 2.2%
Oregon - 1.8%
Washington - 1.5%
Nevada - 1.2%
Idaho - 1.1%
North Carolina - 1.1%
Utah - 1.1%
Minnesota - 1.0%
Colorado - 0.9%
Kansas - 0.9%
Nebraska - 0.9%
Wisconsin - 0.9%
Arkansas - 0.8%
California - 0.7%
Louisiana - 0.6%
Maine - 0.5%
Michigan - 0.5%
Texas - 0.5%
Alabama - 0.4%
Mississippi - 0.4%
Missouri - 0.4%
Rhode Island - 0.4%
Vermont - 0.4%
Florida - 0.3%
Delaware - 0.3%
Hawaii - 0.3%
Iowa - 0.3%
New York - 0.3%
South Carolina - 0.3%
Tennessee - 0.3%
Georgia - 0.2%
Virginia - 0.2%
Connecticut - 0.2%
Illinois - 0.2%
Indiana - 0.2%
Kentucky - 0.2%
Maryland - 0.2%
Massachusetts - 0.2%
New Hampshire - 0.2%
New Jersey - 0.2%
Ohio - 0.2%
West Virginia - 0.2%
Pennsylvania - 0.1%
District of Columbia - 0.3%
Puerto Rico - 0.2%
None of that is zero though, i.e. total extermination. But look closer,
look at the record of Texas, for example -- some tribes are 100%
eliminated!!! Here: http://i30.tinypic.com/28ap2fq.jpg
Yet would you call US a genocidal nation, exterminating practically a
whole continent of native Indians? (Maybe you would?)
No, what I'm saying is winning is a very important if not the sole
criterion of right and wrong in the annals of human history. The US is a
shining success, beacon for the world. You may like it, you may not like
it. Victory may have a thousand fathers; defeat is always an orphan.
>
>> Then you committed the same fallacy as everyone namely just because
>> little baby Einstein can be starved to death does NOT mean everyone will
>> become little baby Einstein with proper nutrition. Just because
>> malnutrition can stunt height does not mean everyone will be equally
>> tall or 7 feet tall. 2005 SAT amazingly reveals black US kids who hail
>> from families making more than $100K actually score *lower* than white
>> US kids who hail from families making $10K. Environmental enrichment
>> don't quite necessarily patch up biological substrate deficiency.
>
> Of course, you've corrected for variables, right??!! Families making
> $10k don't send their kids to college. They don't even have enough money
> to buy food. But that said, you seem to be getting your "information"
> from white racist sources. The actual claim is that black kids from
> affluent backgrounds score lower than _white_ kids from poorer
> backgrounds. "Affluent" does not mean generations of wealth, it simply
> means people who are _currently_ making a certain sum of money. And
> white families making $10k cannot, as I said, send their kids to
> college, so I doubt that this is the demographic being compared. Add to
> that the fact that primarily black neighbourhoods are historically
> disadvantaged in terms of educational and social resources.
"5% of America (i.e. Jews and Asians) grabs 50% of Harvard, leaving 95%
of America scrambling for the other half."
Why do Asians and Jews score higher than whites *in spite of* their vast
over-representation by your logic? Shouldn't they score lower since
they're so over-represented already and hence by definition universities
are dipping and diving way way down into the talent pool? Your blindspot
is, once again, human equality. Grow up.
>
>> As for worldwide summary of intelligence results, I've posted this also
>> if you're even paying attention:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/c3nkc6
>>
>> Now, compare China and Japan. They have essentially similar IQ. Yet
>> based on the largest adult net worth study released couple years ago by
>> the EIU, an average adult Japanese is worth 69 times - 69 times!! --
>> that of an average Chinese in China. Similarly, an average adult Hong
>> Kong citizen is worth 66 times that of an average Chinese in China (all
>> in US exchange rate http://i17.tinypic.com/42vv8ev.jpg ) Yet why is
>> it that their IQs are so similar? Taiwan as you said or implied is so
>> much more developed and richer than China also, why is it their IQs are
>> so similar? Likewise with Koreans. China, if anything has a
>> socioeconomic status way closer to the 5 South Asian nations: India,
>> Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal compared to Taiwan or Japan or
>> Korea. *Yet* China's IQ achievements are way more congruent with its NE
>> Asian neighbors than her S Asian neighbors, and the difference is most
>> obvious between China and India when population size is roughly
>> corrected for. Likewise Bangladesh is no Japan, Sri Lanka is no Taiwan.
>> When you posit socioeconomic status as a cause for intelligence and
>> education or literacy, it may well be the reverse that is the case.
>
> When you posit alleged IQ results as the cause for socio-economic
> status, you fail to explain why China has remained a third-world country
> for so long.
>
Oh another easy one as I've said. Just because malnutrition can stunt
height does not mean everyone will be equally tall or 6 feet tall. I'd
never say North Koreans are inherently more stupid compared to South
Koreans, nor would I say former East Germans are inherently more stupid
compared to their Western counterparts (would you?). And you failed to
answer the question why is it that China being much more poorer than
other countries still managed to come up high-average IQ (in the context
of the world) while many other countries much richer (e.g. South
American countries, or Middle East countries, and many South European
countries) didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png
If you look deeper, and if you're able to think positive, maybe your
Indian ancestors (I presume) are *right* - ancestry - who you are -
matters way more than you think than superficial socioeconomics, and
we're not all "equal" in mush.
>> Johnny doesn't do well at school and hates math, it might well be
>> because he sucks so bad in the first place and that's why he comes
>> around to hate it.
>
> You are so hung up on math because you can't find any other metric that
> serves your purpose, other that the purported IQ figures, which are
> questionable.
>
> Here's a report that ranks China below 7 European countries. Note that
> the 100 IQ attributed to China comes from a Chinese survey for Beijing,
> and was not adjusted. Do you suppose peasants all across China have the
> same IQ level as Beijing's urbanites?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#National_IQ_estimates
>
>
> Oddly enough, the >105 IQ figure now being widely touted for China in
> general is higher than the Beijing figure, and much higher than two
> other studies. It makes one wonder how and why that is being done.
Agree, some in China are dumber than others
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20552416
Going back to India and China still, here again:
http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
The longitudinal differences seem pretty robust... you may wail at the
results saying 'nonsense' but that doesn't make it go away. It's like a
patient with headache and gets a CAT scan and doctor says, "brain tumor"
and patient says, no no no, the CAT scan is not 100% accurate! There can
be other causes! Maybe it's just stress! Maybe it's just migraines!
Doctor repeats the scan and it's still there. Patient now says CT scan
is not accurate.
No, and this is the whole point: why would you expect every one
including ethnic groups, nations, races, sexes, are *equally* capable
based on drastically different evolutionary pressures? Human evolution
*accelerated* recently, rather than coming to a standstill, and to say
that suddenly after "out of AFrica" subsequent environmental stressors
have had absolutely no effect on human abilities just doesn't make any
sense. Fortunately advances in genetics in the 21st century will
continue to shred 1960s assumptions.
>
>
>> And of course of course it is *possible* for a black or African to
>> have an IQ of 120 or higher much like it's possible to have 6 or 7
>> feet tall women. The question is statistical probability and frequency
>> and you will *still* not find distribution curves all identical across
>> populations in spite of all the social engineering all the 1960s
>> equality chanting. The smartest chimpanzee probably knows how to
>> follow instructions more than some cerebral palsy vegetable kid.
>
> And the IQ of a Beijing resident is in all probability much higher than
> a peasant from Gansu, who is also technically Chinese.
Higher caste Indians (perhaps those with Aryan ancestry) probably are
smarter than lower castes too, probabilistically speaking. Your point is
well-taken and I suspect is correct, once again some hints here
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20552416 where Tibetans
are 'technically' Chinese as it's part of China and not every single
citizen in China will be equal. Principle of inequality again.
The most conservative answer here is it's a prognostic marker, a
potential glimpse of the future, one of 'youth talent'. And if *top*
Indian children chronically underachieve, your dream of some successful
superpower India may need to wait yet another generation, assuming that
ever comes.
>
>
>>>> Really, there may be sampling biases or vetting errors for sure, but
>>>> you really have to ask yourself about India's constant and
>>>> consistent low-achieving pattern.
>>>
>>> I don't agree with that. Since the opening up of the economy, India
>>> has done much better than before, despite the handicaps of endemic
>>> corruption and the legacy of widespread illiteracy and weak
>>> infrastructure. Remember that China did not become a manufacturing
>>> power overnight. It took decades after its own liberalisation, and
>>> that with an authoritarian government backed by cash from the richest
>>> country in the world.
>>
>> So America somehow supports or at least colludes with China? That's
>> a new interesting one!!!
>
> American capitalism does, and that's no secret. I was in an upscale
> men's store the other day, and I saw a designer golf shirt priced at
> $138. It didn't seem much different from other quality shirts I've seen
> priced at $40, so I looked at the label. It said "Made in China". Do you
> think it would have killed the designer to spend $5 having the shirt
> made in the US, rather than the $1 or less it costs in China? Of course
> not, but that would be $4 less per piece in his pocket, and something
> that is not in the least reflected in the retail price. That is the
> greed of capitalism that has moved American manufacturing from the US to
> China.
>
> Nope, not "new interesting", just "old hat", made in China, of course.
So now you blame American capitalism. So let's say that's true, and
that's some truth in that. Why not have it made in India or Bangladesh,
why not Mexico or Indonesia? There are lots of third world countries
around, including many in Africa, even poorer than India. Why not there,
why China?
>
>
>> So here. "Since the opening up of the economy, India has done much
>> better than before" you wrote. Explain this now -- why did China
>> overtake and diverge from India even *more* after the early 90s:
>> http://i32.tinypic.com/2nut6iw.jpg
>
> I've told you before: China had a jump start, it had the backing of
> western capitalists, and most importantly(and the main reason why the
> western capitalists backed it), an authoritarian government that
> dictated wages, work rules and environmental policy, and banned labour
> protests of any kind. India, on the other hand, besides being 20 years
> late to the party, had no US backing, had shaky coalition governments,
> an over-abundance of workers' unions run by political parties(not the
> least of which are run by the Beijing-backed Marxist-Communists),
> runaway population growth and other issues. That India has progressed at
> all is a miracle in itself. Over the years, I have noted that
> BusinessWeek, the WSJ and others have repeatedly hyped Beijing's
> "pro-business" environment, and only mentioned India when there was
> something either insignificant or negative. Only Thomas Friedman of the
> NYT had consistently positive views on India.
1. As posted on the other thread on Tom Friedman - he had this slip:
"...in terms of hard-core business processes, so much of this is about
writing code and things of that nature, that I believe at the end of the
day business will go to where the brains are and not where the language
is. You will meet companies today in the United States who have already
skipped over India and gone right to China for basically the next
generation of business process engineering.
"In working on my book, I interviewed Bill Gates, and he told me that
Microsoft opened its third research center in the world in Beijing in
1998. It used to just have a research center in Cambridge, England, nice
English-speaking place, and Redmond, Washington. He told me they opened
their research center in China by giving IQ tests to 2,000 Chinese
around the country, Ph.D.s and engineering students, recommended to
them, and out of those 2,000 they basically chose 20 to open the
research center in China.
:
:
"Now, what Bill Gates will also tell you is that today the China
Research Center is the leading research center in Microsoft. You know
what he'll also tell you, though? He'll tell you that Microsoft's best
game designers all come from Japan. I bet none of them speak English, or
very few. So, I don't think this is going to be about language. I think
the language advantage is going to quickly be arbitraged out. There'll
be more Chinese speakers on the Internet very, very soon."
2. But I thought China is this horrible horrible country where a tiny
cabal oppresses a billion and slaughtering their own like pigs at whim.
One journalist gushed and praised the noisy cackling if inefficient
Indian democracy and ended with a stirring "what can be more American?"
and gave thumbs up for India!!
So, Mr. Rajah, are you now telling us, confiding in us, confessing to us
that in retrospect maybe India's noisy cacophony of democracy is *not*
some hyped up good that America says it is? That perhaps a Chinese-style
one-party state might be even more conducive to Indian economic
development afterall, with the benefit of hindsight of course.
>
>
>>>>>> Speaking of Israel, let's compare that to similar population sized
>>>>>> Hong
>>>>>> Kong, i.e. about 7 million people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hong Kong is ranked #29
>>>>>> Israel is ranked #46 as you said
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7 million people - that's not even the size of Mumbai or Delhi!
>>>>>
>>>>> So what? The Israelis/Jews are among the best theoretical and
>>>>> applied mathematicians in the world. They would kick Chinese ass
>>>>> any day.
>>>>
>>>> Earlier on you quoted that Israel is ranked low (you're the one who
>>>> brought up Israel, not me), are you saying that Israelis/Jews are
>>>> better than Indians in math also *even* they have scored low?
>>>
>>> Yes, they are better than anyone else. After all, they practically
>>> invented applied mathematics. High school competitions do not
>>> demonstrate the capabilities of the adult population.
>>
>> If true then you'll certainly appreciate that lurking powerful
>> explanatory power of IQ not less but even more: do you know that Ash
>> Jews (not all Jews but Ash Jews) registered some of the highest
>> ethnic/religious IQ scores around the world. And now you're telling us
>> Jews are **also** such great mathematicians? Wow!! Does that not again
>> illustrate the importance of intelligence, and thus the convergence of
>> India's low IQ AND low math accomplishment or social outcome.
>
> And where are the Jews in the IMO which is, after all, the basis for
> your claim of racial superiority?
But again this is where population size of Israel comes into play.
Israel has done quite well compared to other countries of similar size
if you look at it. The question once again goes back to the *chronic
underachievement* of India in spite of its 1 billion + people vis-a-vis
India. (When you have no explanation, talk about something else like
Israel! Or the US as another poster here does!)
And second I also very specifically said Ash Jews and not all Jews, it'd
be interesting to see Israel's mix.
Wow, what an admission and excuse - like I said before on this thread:
"But I thought China is this horrible horrible country where a tiny
cabal oppresses a billion and slaughtering their own like pigs at whim.
One journalist gushed and praised the noisy cackling if inefficient
Indian democracy and ended with a stirring "what can be more American?"
and gave thumbs up for India!!
"So, Mr. Rajah, are you now telling us, confiding in us, confessing to
us that in retrospect maybe India's noisy cacophony of democracy is
*not* some hyped up good that America says it is? That perhaps a
Chinese-style one-party state might be even more conducive to Indian
economic development afterall, with the benefit of hindsight of course."
There is another item here in support of your point though, and that is
Singapore. Singapore is a one party state, a "benign" dictatorship,
founded by Lee Kwan Yew. Here's what I also posted before on his
thoughts on democracy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3YFl-dY9Qg
And here's the latest GDP PPP per capita of Singapore from the IMF,
World Bank, and CIA World Fact Book:
Singapore 51,142 49,288 52,000
Compare that to say prosperous small NW European countries like Sweden
Sweden 37,245 37,838 38,500
Or Switzerland
Switzerland 42,783 42,534 40,900
Don't forget Singapore had nothing to begin with in the 60s, rubbing
shoulder to shoulder in the 60s with African countries.
Would you now, even without hindsight, rather live in Singapore, or
would you rather live in some African country or Afghanistan where
everyone's now exercising their new-found voting "rights" of some
"democracy"?
So going back to this point about deferring responsibility that Indians
are just blaming on their own government that they chose, what do they
plan to do about it? Follow China in between paroxysms of envy?
See above on my comments on democracy.
See above again, on China and Singapore.
>
>> If this is your last world - think deeper as RichAsianKid says.
>
> Why do you speak of yourself in the third person? It indicates a
> megalomaniacal condition.
>
>
>> India
>> had a wonderful caste system - people are NOT equal. Why ditch Indian
>> historical heritage for some meaningless modern Western 1960s rhetoric
>> of equality?
>>
>> Think outside the box.
>
> Think outside of authoritarianism, you'd be surprised by what you find.
Oh I did. Never mind equality but also democracy: you'll be surprised
how "Westerners" in private will say either (1) it's overrated or (2)
it's useful, depending on socioeconomic strata of course.
rst0wxyz
> rst0wxyz wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Doesn't this tell you the IQ test is geared toward the whites rather
> > than the actual intelligence of a person?
>
> By same token does not this tell you white-derived IQ tests (which SAT
> correlates with) are biased against whites in favor of Asians?
Asians have been rote learners for many many generations. They copy,
but can not create.
P. Rajah
Where is the preponderance of data that shows that the *average* Chinese
has an IQ >105?
Check out this table, and explain why China is still so far behind other
countries in GDP:
http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm
Check out the difference in IQ between East Germany and West Germany,
who are the same race of people.
Also, read this, it might open up your mind a little:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116991.html
Gods & Monkeys
> Yes, they are better than anyone else. After all, they practically
> invented applied mathematics. High school competitions do not
> demonstrate the capabilities of the adult population.
Yes. Very strong point. More broadly, child prodigys far more often
than not become relatively mediocre adults, becoming good at their
fields, but not the super achievers expected of them. One "problem"
maybe
that they become desensitized to outside pressure and rewards, having
"risen above". This is a general feature of human beings. Those at the
top
can never remain there. Individually or as a group. Chinese prodigies,
Jewish Hollywood,
the French aristocracy of the 18th C., Brahmin India, WASPs of mid
20th C America,
Wall Street brokerages of 2008, all fall.
P. Rajah
First off, it's like _you_ have ADD, since you are repeating yourself.
My interjection did not in any way affect the rest of your remarks,
which you made *still* without addressing the issue of Chinese versus
starving Iraqi soccer players, instead you bring in Kenyan runners.
Surely hand-picked, well-fed, state-sponsored, state-trained Chinese
soccer players should have been able to beat the snot out of a rag-tag
band of Iraqis, who are not particularly known for physical prowess?
Does that fact of extermination of native American tribes become
palatable, even laudable perhaps, because the Europeans won? Don't try
to justify your defense of German genocide with such ludicrous claims.
The US has acknowledged the enormous injustice done to the native
Americans, and no one is defending the genocide as justifiable in the
interest of creating the USA. Your arguments are so ridiculous that one
cannot even term them laughable, they are beyond that.
> No, what I'm saying is winning is a very important if not the sole
> criterion of right and wrong in the annals of human history. The US is a
> shining success, beacon for the world. You may like it, you may not like
> it. Victory may have a thousand fathers; defeat is always an orphan.
Meaningless drivel. You fellows are still chafing at the Japanese.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-04-22-japan-china_x.htm
Why can't you let it go with the sentiment you expressed above?
Jews score higher than which whites?
http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm
What makes you think that China has high average IQ? Has a
representative sample been tested? Afaik, the tests were conducted in
Beijing and Shanghai on children. The 1993 Raven-Zhang study, done on
18-80 year-olds, has a much lower score.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png
>
>
> If you look deeper, and if you're able to think positive, maybe your
> Indian ancestors (I presume) are *right* - ancestry - who you are -
> matters way more than you think than superficial socioeconomics, and
> we're not all "equal" in mush.
I see plenty of "dumb" whites, blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, Indians, Jews
etc. It is a fact that measured IQ in a population diminishes with age,
as differentiating factors come into play. Thus the adult IQ of a
country will vary depending on the stimulus the general populace is
subjected to. I find it *extremely* unlikely that the "average" IQ in
China is >105, as claimed. Is Beijing now populated exclusively by geniuses?
>>> Johnny doesn't do well at school and hates math, it might well be
>>> because he sucks so bad in the first place and that's why he comes
>>> around to hate it.
>>
>> You are so hung up on math because you can't find any other metric
>> that serves your purpose, other that the purported IQ figures, which
>> are questionable.
>>
>> Here's a report that ranks China below 7 European countries. Note that
>> the 100 IQ attributed to China comes from a Chinese survey for
>> Beijing, and was not adjusted. Do you suppose peasants all across
>> China have the same IQ level as Beijing's urbanites?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#National_IQ_estimates
>>
>>
>> Oddly enough, the >105 IQ figure now being widely touted for China in
>> general is higher than the Beijing figure, and much higher than two
>> other studies. It makes one wonder how and why that is being done.
>
>
> Agree, some in China are dumber than others
> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20552416
>
> Going back to India and China still, here again:
>
> http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
Funny how you consistently provide references from white
supremacist/racial superiority websites.
You appear to have missed, or ignored, my question on the Kenyans. Since
it is unlikely that you will honestly address it, here's a quick
explanation. The Kenyan distance runners have environmental factors that
make them superior long-distance runners. They have, for generations,
exerted themselves physically at an oxygen-poor altitude. This has built
up their lung capacity, as well as the oxygen-carrying ability of their
blood. Thus, when they compete against other runners who do not have the
advantage of this heritage, and who tire out more quickly as their
oxygen levels deplete, the Kenyans are able to outlast their opponents.
This is why the Kenyans win, and not Nigerians, who are also black.
[....]
Because China guarantees armies of cheap, uncomplaining labourers, who
cannot form unions or demand higher wages or better working conditions.
This has also enabled China to build infrastructure in short order,
without the constraint of economics. In short, Beijing runs Chinese
labour like convict labour, and that is very appealing to capitalists.
I read today that China's "stimulus money" is resulting in the delivery
of cooking ranges and washing machines to villages with no running water
or electricity.
"...many of the households that purchased washing machines, or were
virtually given such machines, have found them unusable because their
homes lack either the running water or electricity (or both) necessary
to make use of a modern appliance."
http://www.aei.org/outlook/100061
I realise that you are arguing purely from a racist point of view, and I
could spend the rest of my life rebutting your nonsense, so I have
truncated the rest of the post, and end my "conversation" with you.
[....]
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Brahmin India is/was at the top of what?
RichAsianKid
Chinese and Iraqis are NOT equal, so why would you expect them to have
equal sports aptitude? Details and mechanics will need to be worked out
of course, but even if focus more closely those who run marathons tend
to be a different demographic than those who run 100 m sprints. Similar
with other types of sports. Once again, inequality rules, not equality.
And just as you see differences in performance between racial/ethnic
groups in sports, you should expect difference in cognitive/mental
performance in racial/ethnic groups also.
See this article, will quote in full for everyone.
http://vdare.com/misc/entine_boston_marathon.htm
Why Kenyans Win the Boston Marathon (And Why We�re Afraid To Talk About It)
By Jon Entine
It's the passion of the adoring crowds at the National Stadium in
Nairobi. Coaches comb the countryside for a rising generation of stars,
who are showered with special training and government perks. It's no
exaggeration to call Kenya's national sport a national religion.
After 10 straight Kenyan victories in the men�s division of the Boston
Marathon, and four consecutive wins by East African women, even casual
fans are familiar with this success story. According to conventional
wisdom, East Africans dominate because they ran to school as children,
train torturously at high altitude, and are desperate to escape poverty.
It�s in their culture.
There's only one problem: The national sport, hero worship, and social
channeling speak to Kenya's enduring obsession with not running but
soccer. Unfortunately, Kenyans (and other East Africans) are regularly
trounced in the Africa Games by West African countries. It�s just not in
their genes.
Science does not support the speculation that Kenyans dominate because
of social factors, myths widely peddled by the media. "I lived right
next door to school," laughs Wilson Kipketer, world 800-meter record
holder, dismissing such cookie-cutter explanations. "I walked, nice and
slow." Some kids ran to school, some didn�t, he says, but it�s not why
we succeed.
And for every Kenyan monster-miler there are others, like Kipketer, who
get along on less than thirty. "Training regimens are as varied in Kenya
as anywhere in the world," notes Colm O�Connell, coach at St. Patrick�s
Iten, the famous private school and running factory in the Rift Valley
that turned out Kipketer and other Kenyan greats. O�Connell eschews the
mega-training so common among runners in Europe and North America who
have failed so miserably in bottling the Kenyan running miracle.
Though individual success is about fire in the belly and opportunity,
genes set possibilities. East Africans win in large measure because
elite runners have a near perfect biomechanical package for endurance:
lean, ectomorphic physiques, large lung capacity, and a preponderance of
slow twitch muscle fibers. That�s a poor anatomical profile for
sprinting (the best Kenyan 100 meter time is a pokey 10.28), soccer,
weightlifting, and field events, sports in which Kenyans are laggards.
"Kenyans are born with a high number of slow twitch fibers," states
Bengt Saltin, director of the Copenhagen Muscle Research Center, one of
the top experts in this field. "They have 70 to 75 percent of their
muscle fibers being slow. Very many in sports physiology would like to
believe that it is training, the environment, what you eat that plays
the most important role. But based on the data, it is in your genes
whether or not you are talented or whether you will become talented."
Not surprisingly, East Africans win more than 50 percent of top
endurance races. Almost all trace their ancestry to the 6,000-8,000 foot
highlands that snake along the western edge of the Great Rift Valley.
The loosely-named Kalenjins, roughly 1.5 million Kenyans, win 40 percent
of international distance events. The Nandi district, 500,000
people�one-twelve-thousandth of Earth's population�sweeps an
unfathomable 20 percent, marking it as the greatest concentration of raw
athletic talent in the history of sports. "If you can believe that
individuals of recent African ancestry are not genetically advantaged
over those of European and Asian ancestry in certain athletic
endeavors," notes retired molecular biologist Vincent Sarich, "then you
probably could be led to believe just about anything. But such dominance
will never convince those whose minds are made up that genetics plays
not role in shaping the racial patterns we see in sports. When we
discuss issues such as race, it pushes buttons and the cerebral cortex
just shuts down."
Why do we so readily accept that evolution has turned out blacks with a
genetic proclivity to contract sickle cell and colo-rectal cancer, Jews
of European heritage who are one hundred times more likely than other
groups to fall victim to the degenerative mental disease Tay-Sachs, and
whites who are most vulnerable to cystic fibrosis and multiple
sclerosis, yet find it racist to acknowledge that the success of East
African distance runners, Eurasian white power lifters, and sprinters of
West African ancestry can be explained, in part, by genetics?
Acknowledging any innate differences runs head-long against the American
myth that everyone has an "equal possibility" at success, when the
Constitution, and science, commits only to "equal opportunity." Advances
in population genetics makes it quite clear that in some important ways
humans are different, certainly in the proclivity to many diseases and
in athletic skills. This is not "scientific racism," as some assert.
Scientists who have documented anatomical differences between
populations reject notions that physical ability and mental acuity are
inversely linked. There is simply no denying that genes can matter.
"Differences among athletes of elite caliber are so small," notes Robert
Malina, Michigan State anthropologist and editor of the Journal of Human
Biology, "that if you have a physique... it might be very, very
significant. The fraction of a second is the difference between the gold
medal and fourth place."
To underscore the magnitude of such an advantage, Professor Sarich
calculated, based on population statistics alone, the probability that
all of the last ten Boston Marathon winners would hail from the same
region in Kenya: 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000002. That�s
functionally equivalent to the last ten winners all coming from Idaho.
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, the popular myth persists that
there are no meaningful genetic differences. In his State of the Union
address in 2000, President Clinton declared that "We are all, regardless
of race, 99.9 percent the same," apparently trying to allay fears about
the potential misuse of data generated by advances in genetic science.
Well, there is no detectable genetic difference between a wolf, a
Labrador, and a poodle�zero�but no one would dare suggest that their
body type and behavioral differences are cultural, rather than innate.
Differences are grounded in gene sequences and proteins and are
activated by obscure environmental triggers.
All the training in the world is not likely to turn an Inuit Eskimo,
programmed to be short and stout, into an NBA center or a Nigerian (or
for that matter an African American who traces his ancestry from West
Africa) into an elite marathoner. The world's most elaborate sports
factory combined with state-supervised illegal drug supplements still
could not turn even one East German sprinter into the world's fastest
human. Highly heritable characteristics such as skeletal structure,
musculature and metabolic efficiency are not evenly distributed across
population groups.
Yet, hypocrisy abounds, even among many scientists. Just last week at a
conference on race and sports, Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould,
renowned for his political correctness as much as for his scientific
acumen, apparently attempted to score some media points with his
declaration that there is no "running gene." Of course, no scientist
claims there is a "running gene." Geneticists and anthropologists assert
only that genetics plays a role in some patterned differences between
populations, including in shaping body type and physiology.
Gould�s circumlocution seem designed to play to the popular myth of
equal possibility. Reuters fell for the ruse, headlining its story:
"Athletic Achievement Isn't in the Genes." Yet, even Gould didn�t go
that far. Buried in the article was Gould�s admission that sports
success is a complex combination of social, environmental, and
biological factors, none of which can easily be teased out and isolated.
That�s of course exactly what geneticists and anthropologists have shown
repeatedly. In other words, humans are different, a product of the
intertwined and inseparable relationship of genes and environment. Such
nuance is apparently too controversial to trust with the media.
But hard scientists who actually experiment with genetic variation, such
as Arizona State University evolutionary biologist Joseph Graves, Jr.,
reject such equivocation as obfuscation. "The fact that monolithic
racial categories do not show up consistently in the genotype does not
mean there are no group differences between pockets of populations. It
varies by characteristic. It doesn't necessarily correlate with skin
color, but rather by geography," notes Dr. Graves, an African American
and author of The Emperor�s New Clothes, a book about race science.
"Populations with roots in equatorial Africa are more likely to have
lower natural fat levels. That is likely a key factor in running. It's
an adaptive mutation based on climate. But that's a long way from
reconstructing century old racial science."
Caution over the potential misuse of genetic research is certainly
warranted. After all, pseudo-science and claims that certain "races" are
genetically superior and destined to dominate has historically been
evoked to justify colonialism, slavery, apartheid and the Holocaust.
It�s not clear, however, that disingenuity, deception, and even
censorship are the tools to guarantee against such potential misuse.
Popular thinking, still reactive to the historical misuse of "race
science," lags the new bio-cultural model of human nature. The question
is no longer whether genetic research will continue but to what end. "If
decent people don't discuss human biodiversity," warns Walter E.
Williams of George Mason University; "we concede the turf to black and
white racists." Sports offer a non-polemical way to convey this message
and de-politicize what has sometimes been a vitriolic debate.
Jon Entine (http://www.jonentine.com) is author of Taboo: Why Black
Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We�re Afraid to Talk About It
[PublicAffairs, 200], which was just released in paperback.
So you're saying America is just as guilty in extermination? Well then!
What to do? Should Americans be collectively guilty of 'war crimes' or
'crimes against humanity' or does that not count now. Or are you
defending the US by your "acknowledging the enormous injustice" is
enough apology for the native Indians' extermination today.
From an American perspective, don't forget this kicker: the reason why
the native Indians aren't making much noise and seizing the spotlight on
the political landscape is because.........there're so few of them,
unlike blacks and now Hispanics.
Hmmmm, here's a thought exercise for China. Kill off 99% of Tibetans,
reduce their 2.4 million in the Tibet Autonomous Religion down to
24,000. Then apologize profusely after. Follow the lead of the US. Now
how does that achieve harmony? There will be much fewer Tibetans
clamoring for secession!
There is reason why America is #1. Maybe not in the Math Olympiad, but
#1 in other ways, so-called fabled Yankee ingenuity. ;)
>
>
>> No, what I'm saying is winning is a very important if not the sole
>> criterion of right and wrong in the annals of human history. The US is
>> a shining success, beacon for the world. You may like it, you may not
>> like it. Victory may have a thousand fathers; defeat is always an orphan.
>
> Meaningless drivel. You fellows are still chafing at the Japanese.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-04-22-japan-china_x.htm
>
> Why can't you let it go with the sentiment you expressed above?
>
Chinese just want to milk Japanese guilt, much like Jews milking German
guilt, or blacks milking white American guilt. And when some sort of $$
in the form of compensation come by, all the better.
But thank you for illustrating my point which I know you didn't intend
to: the only reason why Japan and Germany are *even* apologizing or made
to apologize is they lost the war.
Why are all the calls for 'war crimes' against people of Dresden or
Hiroshima let's say, or as I illustrated, native Americans?
I already told you so many times it's Ashkenazi Jews. (Did you pass
senior high school btw; have to ask based on your comprehension, or did
you pass but only by typical Indian standards. Just curious....)
http://i25.tinypic.com/2dh79k9.jpg
Note also here - if there is a group scoring higher than Chinese or
Japanese, I am happy to acknowledge that. But you seem to have problems
acknowledging that Chinese score lower than Indians. I think it reflects
your own personal insecurity, no?
If so, are those scores higher or lower than IQ data from India? Higher
or lower. What is it? I'd like to know please!!
Lynn in 2006 summarized this: http://i32.tinypic.com/2gv7bsp.jpg
Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea have slightly higher scores than
China, Taiwan, and Japan, which are roughly equal. And all have way
higher scores than India (81, 82).
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png
>>
>>
>> If you look deeper, and if you're able to think positive, maybe your
>> Indian ancestors (I presume) are *right* - ancestry - who you are -
>> matters way more than you think than superficial socioeconomics, and
>> we're not all "equal" in mush.
>
> I see plenty of "dumb" whites, blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, Indians, Jews
> etc. It is a fact that measured IQ in a population diminishes with age,
> as differentiating factors come into play. Thus the adult IQ of a
> country will vary depending on the stimulus the general populace is
> subjected to. I find it *extremely* unlikely that the "average" IQ in
> China is >105, as claimed. Is Beijing now populated exclusively by
> geniuses?
>
There are dumb people in every group; the real question is proportion.
Likewise there are short men and short women at say 5 feet tall, tall
men and tall women at say 6 feet tall. However I bet there are many more
5 feet tall women than 5 feet tall men, and many more 6 feet tall men
than 6 feet tall women. Simple elementary bell curve stats which if you
have passed high school you will find easy to understand.
>
>>>> Johnny doesn't do well at school and hates math, it might well be
>>>> because he sucks so bad in the first place and that's why he comes
>>>> around to hate it.
>>>
>>> You are so hung up on math because you can't find any other metric
>>> that serves your purpose, other that the purported IQ figures, which
>>> are questionable.
>>>
>>> Here's a report that ranks China below 7 European countries. Note
>>> that the 100 IQ attributed to China comes from a Chinese survey for
>>> Beijing, and was not adjusted. Do you suppose peasants all across
>>> China have the same IQ level as Beijing's urbanites?
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#National_IQ_estimates
>>>
>>>
>>> Oddly enough, the >105 IQ figure now being widely touted for China in
>>> general is higher than the Beijing figure, and much higher than two
>>> other studies. It makes one wonder how and why that is being done.
>>
>>
>> Agree, some in China are dumber than others
>> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20552416
>>
>> Going back to India and China still, here again:
>>
>> http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
>
> Funny how you consistently provide references from white
> supremacist/racial superiority websites.
Another ad hominem! Thank you.
AND since ancestral environments have been so different as I just posted
and as you have acknowledged, why whould we NOT expect differential
environmental stressors to exert differences? Skin color, head
size/cranial capacity, height/fat/weight distribution etc, as well as
cognitive ability/IQ and physical ability. What you have pinpointed is
*precisely* how evolution occurs, survival of the fittest when traits
are heritable and not uniformly distributed. Which is why population
groups and races are NOT equal today. Some run faster, some think
quicker. Even you understand this point deep down when you think about
it. Now it's time for you to face what you deep deep down already *know*.
And I already quoted above on this reply on Kenyans, here again:
http://vdare.com/misc/entine_boston_marathon.htm
I will not expect you to reply to this post since you have 'ended' your
'conversation' with RichAsianKid.
I therefore will re-post what you deleted because I know you either you
deep down agree (as evident by your immediate reply above) or have no
answer (nor will I expect one, unless you don't keep your word). I
suspect the former though.
RichAsianKid's analysis on Mr. Rajah: maybe, just maybe, thru that cruel
retrospective lens, in your heart of hearts, you might even have wished
India to have followed a more authoritarian model (if not in details
then at least in spirit) a la China or Singapore, rather than some noisy
Western-inspired 'democracy', constantly being hamstrung by endless
special interests, ethnic diversity, and religious strife, pulling the
country in all directions if not threatening to tear it apart, leading
India nowhere anytime soon.
What if?
===========
(A) Mr. Rajah wrote:
"I've told you before: China had a jump start, it had the backing of
western capitalists, and most importantly(and the main reason why the
western capitalists backed it), an authoritarian government that
dictated wages, work rules and environmental policy, and banned labour
protests of any kind. India, on the other hand, besides being 20 years
late to the party, had no US backing, had shaky coalition governments,
an over-abundance of workers' unions run by political parties(not the
least of which are run by the Beijing-backed Marxist-Communists),
runaway population growth and other issues. That India has progressed at
all is a miracle in itself. Over the years, I have noted that
BusinessWeek, the WSJ and others have repeatedly hyped Beijing's
"pro-business" environment, and only mentioned India when there was
something either insignificant or negative. Only Thomas Friedman of the
NYT had consistently positive views on India."
RichAsianKid replied:
(B) Mr. Rajah wrote:
"It is a fact that it is much, much harder to have consensus in a
democratic environment rather than top-down authoritarian regimes such
as that in your country. And India's multi-party, multi-ethnic,
multi-lingual, multi-religious plurality only compounds the
difficulties. That is known, and your refusal to acknowledge it only
accentuates your blind bias."
RichAsianKid replied:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3YFl-dY9Qg
Singapore 51,142 49,288 52,000
===========
RichAsianKid
You have no answer on why you think blacks, whites, Indians, Chinese,
Jews all have equal identical intelligence -- especially since you
provided us with the table how they're DIFFERENT! Thank you for
conceding Mr. Rajah!
Now you provided us with data from 2002. India's IQ is 81, 82, 82, 78.
That compares with China's 100, 92.5, 103.4, and 103. No overlap at all,
and India's IQ is clearly lower than China's. Thank you Mr. Rajah also
for confirming the point of India's lower IQ in multiple studies.
As for China's 105? Here's a later review from Lynn's updated list in 2006:
http://vdare.com/rushton/061207_iq.htm
"IQ & Global Inequality addresses more fundamentally the question of the
causes of national differences in intelligence. It concludes that these
depend on the racial composition of the populations. Thus, the 6 East
Asian countries (China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and
Singapore) all have IQs in the range of 105 to 108. The 29 European
countries all have IQs in the range of 92 to 102. The 19 countries of
sub-Saharan Africa all have IQs in the range of 59 to 73. Thus there is
remarkable consistency in the IQs of countries when these are
classified into racial clusters."
Get it? All have IQs from 105 to 108. So I did a check.
And here's from Wikipedia:
http://i32.tinypic.com/2gv7bsp.jpg
China = ~105. Note I wrote ~.
Unless you're innumerate you'll not take these few points so seriously,
for like all measurements there will be a margin of error. Who cares
whether China's 100 or 105? Maybe it is 102 or 98 or 107 or something.
Compared to INdia however India is 81 in 2002, and 82 in 2006. If you
give and take a few points, there is still little overlap between their
19-23 point difference!
And the funny thing is that the gulf between China and India is LARGER
than the gap between white and black Americans -- don't forget that even
with a 15 point difference an average black is only at the 16th
percentile of whites.
Ouch!
To fully grasp the significance of the burden of India, think of the
analogy between black Americans and Asian Americans. Let's say 90-110 IQ
is normal, below 90 is below average, above 110 is above average. What
are the proportions of Asians and blacks who are above average and below
average?
For every three Asians with above average IQ, there will be one below
average IQ.
But for every three blacks with above average IQ, there will be no fewer
than 36 (!!) of below average IQ.
Now someone with IQ < 90 is unlikely to graduate from university let
alone professional school. You see the dilemma here? How can a country
sustain itself without the pillars of society? WE're not talking about
geniuses here, but just run-of-the-mill professionals - doctors,
dentists, engineers, architects, lawyers, judges, professors,
administrators, CEOs etc.
So I urge you to think more broadly rather than every single Indian is
hovering around 82 while every Chinese is 105.
Last, about your Flynn effect. There is an obvious reason why Murray's
analysis is more useful re:
"Murray prefers to look at test scores by birth cohorts, e.g., how the
scores of white and black 18-year olds stack up to one another. Those
data show **no closing of the gap** on tests administered since the late
1970s. It remains at about 15 IQ points. Flynn looks at test scores in
the year they are administered without taking account of differences in
age, e.g., how blacks and whites of every age who took in the test in
1985 compare. Flynn found that the black/white IQ score gap narrowed by
5.67 points between 1972 and 2002. Thus the IQ gap has fallen from 15
points to about 10 ten points. Flynn and Murray agree that the debate
over how best to analyze the data is not settled."
Why? The utility of IQ is in part to predict the future, and it is
especially useful in a statistical sense, for groups. Those who take
the SAT tend to be around age 18 or so. Knowing how closely IQ parallels
the SAT, if IQ is indeed narrowing, you should *also* see a concurrent
narrowing of SAT scores. Which is not the case. In fact, it is widening.
This just in August 26th, 2009:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125121641858657345.html#mod=todays_us_page_one
(Note that at the top end Asians actually do better than whites in
critical reading as well, see data
http://tinyurl.com/n73ebh -- if you need explaining ask me for I
know you're not very good in numbers from previous discussions)
Fact is, society is *obsessed* about the gap, i.e. percentiles, i.e. in
the relative, not so much about absolute numbers or scores. Like I said
before, two men are chased down by a bear in a tunnel. One sat down and
decided to give up. The other kept running. The man who sat down said,
'it's no use, we'll never be able to outrun the bear'. The guy who kept
running said, "I don't need to outrun the bear, I just need to outrun you."
And in spite of decades and decades of pouring in money, government
programs, transracial adoptions, media propaganda, the black-white gap
remains.
As you said, open up your mind. Human nature is humbling isn't it? ;)
RichAsianKid
> On Aug 26, 11:44 pm, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> rst0wxyz wrote:
>>> On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Doesn't this tell you the IQ test is geared toward the whites rather
>>> than the actual intelligence of a person?
>> By same token does not this tell you white-derived IQ tests (which SAT
>> correlates with) are biased against whites in favor of Asians?
>
> Asians have been rote learners for many many generations. They copy,
> but can not create.
>
You're saying the tests are even more biased against whites then, i.e.
they underpredict whites' subsequent achievement?
Gods & Monkeys
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't know "what". Just know they were once on top of something.
RichAsianKid
Judging from comments from overseas Brahmin Indians I know they were
once on top of shit. ;)
RichAsianKid
> this is the contest among countries fielding their very best players,
> presumably, no? mor elike basketball contest. i do not believe this says
> anything about the people of any country. in basketball usa dominates most
> times, but lately other coutnries have started to beat usa in basketball. in
> other words, this is not cast in genes.
>
Why then does Slumdog Millionaire answer (d): it's written.
Harder one now: why do blacks dominate basketball in America. Whites
just can't seem to get enough training in spite of exploitation and
economic advantage can they?
>
> "RichAsianKid" <RichAs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h6oab4$h7d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> The 50th International Math Olympiad took place in Bremen, Germany, from
>> 10th of July to 22th of July 2009. An unprecedented 104 countries
>> participated, along with 565 contestants (506 males, 59 females).
>>
>> Results are now out. And here they are:
>>
>> http://www.imo-official.org/year_country_r.aspx?year=2009
>>
>> Top 5 (out of 104 countries):
>>
>> 1. China
>> 2. Japan
>> 3. Russia
>> 4. South Korea
>> 5. North Korea
>>
>> (USA came in 6th)
>>
>> Two comments:
>>
>> (1) China vs India Revisited
>>
>> Results are obviously population size dependent. A small population
>> country like Iceland can't be compared to Germany and should not be
>> assumed to be congentially stupid if they don't measure up. Which brings
>> us back to that forlorn and forgone raging question earlier this decade
>> on the giga-country duel: India vs China. Here are the results:
>>
>> China is ranked #1
>> India is ranked #28
>>
>> Never mind this is already an established pattern of the IMO where India
>> has proven itself to chronically underachieve. But ranks 2-5 in 2009 are
>> still occupied by countries with population sizes much much much smaller
>> than India - Japan, Russia, and the Koreas.
>>
>> Now, we often hear how India might be mediocre on average (due to
>> whatever excuse) but their best (even if they scrape by some razor thin
>> margin) are nonetheless still supposedly so very very uber-bright. From
>> IMO evidence that assertion is seriously wanting year after year. Like I
>> said, it's an established pattern.
>>
>> And if top Indians all defected to the US, shouldn't the US be ranked
>> much higher by now? Or if they've defected, shouldn't they return to
>> India to help out their own kind etc etc. Afterall Taiwan with a
>> population of 23 million -- a population roughly equivalent to combined
>> 2 Indian cities Mumbai and Delhi -- still manages to secure a rank of
>> 11th. India as a whole country didn't.
>>
>> (And guys, don't get the idea India ain't serious about this - even if
>> some might choose to blame it on stylistic presentation instead:
>>
>> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4854266.cms )
>>
>>
>> (2) Let's examine the scores of how individual teams did.
>>
>> Countries send a team of six of their best and brightest to maximize
>> winning chances. So let's look at who gets the gold medals (awarded to
>> the top 1/12 [or 91.7%ile plus]), silver medals (awarded to the next
>> 2/12 highest bracket), bronze medals (awarded to the next 3/12), and
>> honorable mentions (those who get at least full marks on one single
>> question out of six). Like most things real-life, medal allocation is
>> done by percentile; and by definition half the contestants will *not*
>> get any medals.
>>
>> Well. China is the ONLY nation out of 104 where 6 out of 6 participants
>> were awarded *gold* medals. The *only* nation in the world where their
>> team secured 100% solid gold.
>>
>> Sui Generis? Maybe. Followups as follows: Japan has 5 golds and 1
>> bronze, Russia has 5 golds and 1 silver, South Korea has 3 gold and 3
>> silver, North Korea has 3 gold, 2 silver, 1 bronze.
>>
>> And what does this giga-country India have? 0 gold, 3 silver, 2 bronze.
>> And the leftover got an honorable mention.
>>
>> But then again even Taiwan secured 1 gold and 5 silver....
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> PS - RAK's tribute to the only 2 contestants out of 565 who had perfect
>> marks and who scored at the 100th% percentile:
>>
>> (a) Makoto Soejima of Japan
>> (b) Dongyi Wei of China
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
P. Rajah
> AND since ancestral environments have been so different as I just posted
> and as you have acknowledged, why whould we NOT expect differential
> environmental stressors to exert differences? Skin color, head
> size/cranial capacity, height/fat/weight distribution etc, as well as
> cognitive ability/IQ and physical ability. What you have pinpointed is
> *precisely* how evolution occurs, survival of the fittest when traits
> are heritable and not uniformly distributed. Which is why population
> groups and races are NOT equal today. Some run faster, some think
> quicker. Even you understand this point deep down when you think about
> it. Now it's time for you to face what you deep deep down already *know*.
http://www.euvolution.com/euvolution/blackwhite.html
http://www.paulcooijmans.com/statistics/iq_by_country.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-agin/black-and-white-in-americ_b_160704.html
harmony
> harmony wrote:
>> this is the contest among countries fielding their very best players,
>> presumably, no? mor elike basketball contest. i do not believe this says
>> anything about the people of any country. in basketball usa dominates
>> most times, but lately other coutnries have started to beat usa in
>> basketball. in other words, this is not cast in genes.
>>
>
> Why then does Slumdog Millionaire answer (d): it's written.
> Harder one now: why do blacks dominate basketball in America. Whites just
> can't seem to get enough training in spite of exploitation and economic
> advantage can they?
>
>
>
look, the dream team has been beaten by a small white east european country
once, right? now a lot of those white east europeans are playing in the nba,
just like many educated chinese are in usa's smart labor force. you kow
chinese basketball player is playing for houston rockets, right?
harmony
>
> Judging from comments from overseas Brahmin Indians I know they were
> once on top of shit. ;)
>
do i detect some ethnic resentment in your head?
RichAsianKid
You never answered why blacks dominate basketball. In fact it seems like
you conceded they do dominate basketball.
Think: one Vishy Anand does not prove Indians as somehow great chess
players, just as one Marie Curie does not mean women are better on
average than men in physics any more than some 6'2"-feet tall woman
proves somehow women are taller than men. Exceptions do not prove the rule.
The question is once again frequency (both proportion and prevalence as
well as incidence) and populations do not have identical frequencies and
traits and talents are not distributed equally among individuals nor are
they identically distributed between populations be they sexes or ethnic
groups or racial groups.
As illustrated by the IMO.
RichAsianKid
Astute posters will see Mr. Rajah after conceding so many of
RichAsianKid's points on this thread has failed yet once again to
answer the paragraph RichAsianKid wrote which he quoted above.
"AND since ancestral environments have been so different as I just
posted and as you have acknowledged, why whould we NOT expect
differential environmental stressors to exert differences? Skin color,
head size/cranial capacity, height/fat/weight distribution etc, as well
as cognitive ability/IQ and physical ability. What you have pinpointed
is *precisely* how evolution occurs, survival of the fittest when traits
are heritable and not uniformly distributed. Which is why population
groups and races are NOT equal today. Some run faster, some think
quicker. Even you understand this point deep down when you think about
it. Now it's time for you to face what you deep deep down already *know*."
I still expect Mr. Rajah to answer it before he proceeds any further.
That is, why should we still expect equality knowing how ancestral
environments were so different? Posters please take note here!! We await
an answer from Mr. Rajah.
As for his three links in desperation: Mr. Rajah's first link provides
little more than drive-by ad hominems and mere attempts at what's
popularly known as 'deconstruction'; his second is sheer statistical
innumeracy (guys it's embarrassing, it's not even at senior high school
level, if you want to know what RAK means why just ask); while his third
is just another run-of-the-mill strawman and interestingly and not for
the first time raises this very interesting question: a priori if there
is no such thing as intelligence i.e. that it can't be measured or we
don't know how to measure it, then how can anyone say ethnic or racial
groups are even *equal*. How can we be equal in something which doesn't
even exist? And why does Mr. Rajah work himself up in reply to some mere
fantasy, something which doesn't even exist?
RichAsianKid
Please direct queries to Brahmin diaspora.
harmony
> harmony wrote:
>> "RichAsianKid" <RichAs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:h79ked$b0s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> harmony wrote:
>>>> this is the contest among countries fielding their very best players,
>>>> presumably, no? mor elike basketball contest. i do not believe this
>>>> says anything about the people of any country. in basketball usa
>>>> dominates most times, but lately other coutnries have started to beat
>>>> usa in basketball. in other words, this is not cast in genes.
>>>>
>>> Why then does Slumdog Millionaire answer (d): it's written.
>>> Harder one now: why do blacks dominate basketball in America. Whites
>>> just can't seem to get enough training in spite of exploitation and
>>> economic advantage can they?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> look, the dream team has been beaten by a small white east european
>> country once, right? now a lot of those white east europeans are playing
>> in the nba, just like many educated chinese are in usa's smart labor
>> force. you kow chinese basketball player is playing for houston rockets,
>> right?
>
> You never answered why blacks dominate basketball. In fact it seems like
> you conceded they do dominate basketball.
>
you were talking about the achievements of top teams from different
countries.
and i told you the title rotates, no one country will have a lock on the
title for all times to come.
and i gave you the example of american dream team - consitiing mainly of
blacks - getting beat by upcoming resource-deficinet east european teams who
were hungry enough to want the title.
> Think: one Vishy Anand does not prove Indians as somehow great chess
oh, there are many hindu grandmasters - even hindu ladies.
> players, just as one Marie Curie does not mean women are better on average
> than men in physics
thre are many women in physics. the fact is more women now graduate in
scineces than men - in usa.
because, because, because they now have the o-p-p-o-r-t-u-n-i-t-y.
can you spell that for yourself 10 times?
> any more than some 6'2"-feet tall woman proves somehow women are taller
> than men. Exceptions do not prove the rule.
>
> The question is once again frequency (both proportion and prevalence as
> well as incidence) and populations do not have identical frequencies and
> traits and talents are not distributed equally among individuals nor are
> they identically distributed between populations be they sexes or ethnic
> groups or racial groups.
>
> As illustrated by the IMO.
>
>
it is, in the main, about what the national leaders set priorities for the
citizens of their nations.
people treated as dumb and stupid grow upto that expectation, and treated
smart and intellegent grow to those expectations.
the chinese know that. hindus are checkmated by 3m of which you show no
comprehension because you are not very smart to understand the 3m - but
fortunately for the chiense, their leaders do who keep away the 3m with
utmost vigilence.
RichAsianKid
Do you expect every country to achieve some coveted title -- any coveted
title -- in equal frequency? If so, why? Inequality needs no
explanation; we're not all identical twins. Equality (ideology or
assertion) however does. Why would you expect men will be as tall as
women given same opportunity let's say. Or is society just riddled with
sexism and injustice all round. Is the evil US deliberately siphoning
off valuable nutrients from females to males? What about Sweden? What
about Singapore? What about Japan?
>
>
>> Think: one Vishy Anand does not prove Indians as somehow great chess
>
> oh, there are many hindu grandmasters - even hindu ladies.
Let us know the frequencies please. This is one sex/racial differential
in hard sciences:
>
>
>> players, just as one Marie Curie does not mean women are better on average
>> than men in physics
>
> thre are many women in physics. the fact is more women now graduate in
> scineces than men - in usa.
> because, because, because they now have the o-p-p-o-r-t-u-n-i-t-y.
> can you spell that for yourself 10 times?
Again, let us know the frequencies. As posted
IN fact, in the case of blacks, in spite of affirmative action, they
still have NOT achieved parity with the general population. By contrast,
Jews have achieved way more than parity in spite of them being
'discriminated against' and so they loudly broadcast.
How do you reconcile this between these two groups whose trajectory so
amazingly diverge *after* 'emancipation'?
>
>
>> any more than some 6'2"-feet tall woman proves somehow women are taller
>> than men. Exceptions do not prove the rule.
>>
>> The question is once again frequency (both proportion and prevalence as
>> well as incidence) and populations do not have identical frequencies and
>> traits and talents are not distributed equally among individuals nor are
>> they identically distributed between populations be they sexes or ethnic
>> groups or racial groups.
>>
>> As illustrated by the IMO.
>>
>>
>
> it is, in the main, about what the national leaders set priorities for the
> citizens of their nations.
> people treated as dumb and stupid grow upto that expectation, and treated
> smart and intellegent grow to those expectations.
> the chinese know that. hindus are checkmated by 3m of which you show no
> comprehension because you are not very smart to understand the 3m - but
> fortunately for the chiense, their leaders do who keep away the 3m with
> utmost vigilence.
>
>
This is one of the few times when I hear the Chinese and the CCP
("leaders") are doing something right. And I can't believe even Indians
now turn around and say the same thing. It used to be, oh, we Indians
got democracy and British heritage and English facility (how many times
do I have to repeat this?) and even the EU is emulating us etc on
Indian's 60th anniversary. Maybe reality is that one TV-channel that you
may not like but which you can't change.
Sometimes good intentions are not quite enough.
harmony
dear, dear.
who would have ever imagined east european team would beat the dream team?
but it happened.
it is the matter of priority and how bad you want it.
>>
>>
>>> Think: one Vishy Anand does not prove Indians as somehow great chess
>>
>> oh, there are many hindu grandmasters - even hindu ladies.
>
> Let us know the frequencies please. This is one sex/racial differential
> in hard sciences:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2x354h
>
i don't feel quite upto it to find you the link if that's going to convince
you.
but india has several grnadmasters. the women there too are in it.
i think htere was once a game between the ladies of these two countries, and
i think one chinese lady - but not all, before you go wild - won it.
>>
>>
>>> players, just as one Marie Curie does not mean women are better on
>>> average than men in physics
>>
>> thre are many women in physics. the fact is more women now graduate in
>> scineces than men - in usa.
>> because, because, because they now have the o-p-p-o-r-t-u-n-i-t-y.
>> can you spell that for yourself 10 times?
>
> Again, let us know the frequencies. As posted
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2x354h
>
there are more girls than boys in medicine in usa. as you know the brightest
students get into medicine.
if you look at student enrollment in u.s. universities, there are women in
considerable numbers, more than 50pct, in law and business.
engineering perhaps not, but that has little to do with talent, and more to
do with "cozy jobs".
>
> IN fact, in the case of blacks, in spite of affirmative action, they still
> have NOT achieved parity with the general population. By contrast, Jews
> have achieved way more than parity in spite of them being 'discriminated
> against' and so they loudly broadcast.
>
> How do you reconcile this between these two groups whose trajectory so
> amazingly diverge *after* 'emancipation'?
>
>
>>
>>
>>> any more than some 6'2"-feet tall woman proves somehow women are taller
>>> than men. Exceptions do not prove the rule.
>>>
>>> The question is once again frequency (both proportion and prevalence as
>>> well as incidence) and populations do not have identical frequencies and
>>> traits and talents are not distributed equally among individuals nor are
>>> they identically distributed between populations be they sexes or ethnic
>>> groups or racial groups.
>>>
>>> As illustrated by the IMO.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> it is, in the main, about what the national leaders set priorities for
>> the citizens of their nations.
>> people treated as dumb and stupid grow upto that expectation, and treated
>> smart and intellegent grow to those expectations.
>> the chinese know that. hindus are checkmated by 3m of which you show no
>> comprehension because you are not very smart to understand the 3m - but
>> fortunately for the chiense, their leaders do who keep away the 3m with
>> utmost vigilence.
>
> This is one of the few times when I hear the Chinese and the CCP
> ("leaders") are doing something right.
it is beause you are not paying attention, too lost in making our own
prejudicial points. i have always admired the chinese leadership and people.
if you find anything different from my past many many posts, it will be a
wonder.
a point of future trouble with the chinese is that they are not good at
sharing, but very good at grabbing. hopefully this attitude will change with
their growing prosperity.
however, i am sure you will see some darwinian stuff in this for
justification. however, modern world must work on mutual co-operation.
RichAsianKid
Thank you! Your "who could have even imagined" you're right and your
point is well taken. No one seriously believes in "equality" in his
(hers too...) heart of hearts. It violates social etiquette precisely
because what RichAsianKid said is so abrasively true.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>> Think: one Vishy Anand does not prove Indians as somehow great chess
>>> oh, there are many hindu grandmasters - even hindu ladies.
>> Let us know the frequencies please. This is one sex/racial differential
>> in hard sciences:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2x354h
>>
>
> i don't feel quite upto it to find you the link if that's going to convince
> you.
> but india has several grnadmasters. the women there too are in it.
> i think htere was once a game between the ladies of these two countries, and
> i think one chinese lady - but not all, before you go wild - won it.
>
On matters of parity and equality on distribution of talent it's faith
without evidence. Faith without evidence -- in spite of evidence -- is
one definition of religion. If not a cult. It's no accident why
Christianity is so vilified btw, takes one to know one.
The 1960s ideology/religion has run its course and is fizzling out. No
one seriously deep down believes communism still works (even China's CCP
abandoned this equality ideology, what's China's gini index again?!) or
that anymore esp when you see how blacks and browns still fail in spite
of just about every government institution helping them for political
gain. Though equality still has practical value as let's pretend, as
matters of governance. Question is if this can be maintained when it
fights ancestry and identity head-on.
And btw if you're a true true Indian proud of your own (however modest)
heritage you should be the last to succumb to this feel-good American
equality talk for many reasons like I said to Mr. Rajah before.
What, it's not written?
>
>>>
>>>> players, just as one Marie Curie does not mean women are better on
>>>> average than men in physics
>>> thre are many women in physics. the fact is more women now graduate in
>>> scineces than men - in usa.
>>> because, because, because they now have the o-p-p-o-r-t-u-n-i-t-y.
>>> can you spell that for yourself 10 times?
>> Again, let us know the frequencies. As posted
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2x354h
>>
>
> there are more girls than boys in medicine in usa. as you know the brightest
> students get into medicine.
> if you look at student enrollment in u.s. universities, there are women in
> considerable numbers, more than 50pct, in law and business.
> engineering perhaps not, but that has little to do with talent, and more to
> do with "cozy jobs".
Why do you think engineering jobs are 'cozy'? Just curious. They're at
best upper-middle class. I bet given a choice they would want to be
something better. Are women just mediocre? :)
Also what about surgeons or neurosurgeons in particular, the best and
brightest *within* medicine. Women are good at their hands so they
should have every advantage and should be overrepresented in surgery
every single possible way! I'd like to know the male:female neurosurgeon
ratios for instance. Where are all these missing dexterous female
neurosurgeons?
BTW is it because the IMO is not 'cozy' that there's such
disproportionate M:F ratio worldwide? Here again:
http://www.imo-official.org/results_country.aspx?column=awards&order=desc
And if it's not cozy maybe women don't have the stamina or stomach for
it either. Just a thought....
If Chinese are "very good at grabbing" they've scored yet another point
in the court of Darwin!!
No, I think this idea of 'sharing' is a simplistic one, a simple one,
perhaps a palatable one: one of diminishing returns, one of costs vs
benefits. No matter how much some (not you) trumpet Indian pride, top
caste Indians who may pass off as brown Arabs or Middle Easterners or
perhaps even Southern Europeans don't seem to have that visceral sense
of affinity with their $1-a-day cute Indian children like poster
children http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/indian-poverty.jpg
Can you blame them? Should they love their own just like how Jews or
Japanese love their own? Top caste Indians are probably very different
to begin with; heterogenity's still India's Achilles heel; ancestry by
virtue of Indian wisdom, magnified infinitely by democracy, still matters.
Why fight human nature?
harmony
the lack of "equality" arises from the perception that basketball wan't a
priority for the east europeans - not because they wouldn't be able to do it
if they tried.
and which they did, blowing your point on darwinism and genetics and race.
bottom line: try it, you will make it.
so many of them now are playing in the nba, scoring over the black players
in one-on-one situation.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Think: one Vishy Anand does not prove Indians as somehow great chess
>>>> oh, there are many hindu grandmasters - even hindu ladies.
>>> Let us know the frequencies please. This is one sex/racial differential
>>> in hard sciences:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2x354h
>>>
>>
>> i don't feel quite upto it to find you the link if that's going to
>> convince you.
>> but india has several grnadmasters. the women there too are in it.
>> i think htere was once a game between the ladies of these two countries,
>> and i think one chinese lady - but not all, before you go wild - won it.
>>
>
>
> On matters of parity and equality on distribution of talent it's faith
> without evidence. Faith without evidence -- in spite of evidence -- is
> one definition of religion. If not a cult. It's no accident why
> Christianity is so vilified btw, takes one to know one.
>
tch, tch. you are not very bright first to not believe me - which is a big
sin in itself - and then go down this line just because you are too lazy to
do a google search.
but i will put you out of your sins. here it is - your damn evidence:
http://indianchessnews.blogspot.com/2006/10/indian-grandmasters-oct-2006-fide.html
> The 1960s ideology/religion has run its course and is fizzling out. No
> one seriously deep down believes communism still works (even China's CCP
> abandoned this equality ideology, what's China's gini index again?!) or
> that anymore esp when you see how blacks and browns still fail in spite
> of just about every government institution helping them for political
> gain. Though equality still has practical value as let's pretend, as
> matters of governance. Question is if this can be maintained when it
> fights ancestry and identity head-on.
>
> And btw if you're a true true Indian proud of your own (however modest)
> heritage you should be the last to succumb to this feel-good American
> equality talk for many reasons like I said to Mr. Rajah before.
>
> What, it's not written?
>
save it for another day.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> players, just as one Marie Curie does not mean women are better on
>>>>> average than men in physics
>>>> thre are many women in physics. the fact is more women now graduate in
>>>> scineces than men - in usa.
>>>> because, because, because they now have the o-p-p-o-r-t-u-n-i-t-y.
>>>> can you spell that for yourself 10 times?
>>> Again, let us know the frequencies. As posted
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2x354h
>>>
>>
>> there are more girls than boys in medicine in usa. as you know the
>> brightest students get into medicine.
>> if you look at student enrollment in u.s. universities, there are women
>> in considerable numbers, more than 50pct, in law and business.
>> engineering perhaps not, but that has little to do with talent, and more
>> to do with "cozy jobs".
>
> Why do you think engineering jobs are 'cozy'? Just curious. They're at
> best upper-middle class. I bet given a choice they would want to be
> something better. Are women just mediocre? :)
>
sorry, i did put it right.
i meant engineering jobs are not cozy. women like flexibility in their
careers, and they are more family minded.
they like jobs that require less travel. engg jobs often require frequent
travel. women therefore prefer medicine and law, journalism etc.
however, the engg scene is changing, and more women are seen there than
before. we have women astraunauts etc.
don't forget, they have accomplished a whole lot since the start of women
lib in 60s. men have yielded much ground and receded in the same time in
dominance.
> Also what about surgeons or neurosurgeons in particular, the best and
> brightest *within* medicine. Women are good at their hands so they
> should have every advantage and should be overrepresented in surgery
> every single possible way! I'd like to know the male:female neurosurgeon
> ratios for instance. Where are all these missing dexterous female
> neurosurgeons?
>
oh stuff that nitpickin. if that wasn't the case, you will ask how many
women got nobel prizes.
may lorena bobit date you some day:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/09/us/tearful-woman-tells-jury-why-she-cut-off-her-husband-s-penis.html
human nature is co-operation if 3m ideologs are kicked swiftly in their
stomach.
but you have no idea what 3m is. you r ignorance will get you some day.
P. Rajah
> sorry, i did put it right.
> i meant engineering jobs are not cozy. women like flexibility in their
> careers, and they are more family minded.
> they like jobs that require less travel. engg jobs often require frequent
> travel. women therefore prefer medicine and law, journalism etc.
Yeah, journalists don't need to leave home ever. Don't know why
Christiane Amanpour etc. bother to travel.
Penang
A change of scenery is good for the soul, my man !
RichAsianKid
Then what created this perception in the first place? Inequality
needs no real explanation, equality however *does*. An extension
btw is why are Indians not achieving in the math Olympiad, what's this
environmental factor this X-factor that caused India's low abysmal
frankly pathetic achievement. What is it? If it's
about 3m or shitty governments, well, didn't the Indians themselves
*choose* their own destiny for more than half a century now? If it's
still the lingering effects about British "exploitation", please, why is
it Indians allow themselves to be exploited in the first place.
But I also suppose maybe pigs can fly some day....
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Think: one Vishy Anand does not prove Indians as somehow great chess
>>>>> oh, there are many hindu grandmasters - even hindu ladies.
>>>> Let us know the frequencies please. This is one sex/racial
differential in hard sciences:
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2x354h
>>>>
>>> i don't feel quite upto it to find you the link if that's going to
convince you.
>>> but india has several grnadmasters. the women there too are in it.
>>> i think htere was once a game between the ladies of these two
countries, and i think one chinese lady - but not all, before you go
wild - won it.
>>>
>>
>> On matters of parity and equality on distribution of talent it's faith
>> without evidence. Faith without evidence -- in spite of evidence -- is
>> one definition of religion. If not a cult. It's no accident why
>> Christianity is so vilified btw, takes one to know one.
>>
>
> tch, tch. you are not very bright first to not believe me - which is
a big sin in itself - and then go down this line just because you are
too lazy to do a google search.
> but i will put you out of your sins. here it is - your damn evidence:
>
http://indianchessnews.blogspot.com/2006/10/indian-grandmasters-oct-2006-fide.html
>
Why then is it that according to world chess FIDE ratings and criteria
India still ranks below *even* China:
http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml
Even China !! ....Not exactly a nation known for Western chess.
What you've told all of us here and presented to all of us is even more
evidence groups are NOT equal.
Thank you.
Just because malnutrition can stunt height does not mean with equal
nutrition everyone will be equally tall or 7 feet tall. If human nature
is suddenly overcome with ideological 60s feminism women should now be
actively pursuing men of lower status and have sex with them everywhere
you go. And men should really love rich post-menopausal hags. Yet you
still don't see that in spite of decades and decades of social
engineering aka feminism.
Humbling isn't it on the immutability of human nature.
>
>
>
>> Also what about surgeons or neurosurgeons in particular, the best and
>> brightest *within* medicine. Women are good at their hands so they
>> should have every advantage and should be overrepresented in surgery
>> every single possible way! I'd like to know the male:female neurosurgeon
>> ratios for instance. Where are all these missing dexterous female
>> neurosurgeons?
>>
>
> oh stuff that nitpickin. if that wasn't the case, you will ask how
many women got nobel prizes.
> may lorena bobit date you some day:
>
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/09/us/tearful-woman-tells-jury-why-she-cut-off-her-husband-s-penis.html
>
>
Nature is admittedly unfair. Men age like wine; women age like 2% milk.
An ugly but rich 70 year old man will still retain much more potentially
greater reproductive power than some rich 70 year old woman. The
principle of biological *inequality* - inequality again - reigns.
(Is "harmony" some feminist at heart?)
Let me know when people en masse care more about complete strangers than
their own biological brothers or children.
Once again, why fight our own human nature?
P. Rajah
> harmony wrote:
>>
>> tch, tch. you are not very bright first to not believe me - which is
> a big sin in itself - and then go down this line just because you are
> too lazy to do a google search.
>> but i will put you out of your sins. here it is - your damn evidence:
>>
> http://indianchessnews.blogspot.com/2006/10/indian-grandmasters-oct-2006-fide.html
>
>>
>
>
> Why then is it that according to world chess FIDE ratings and criteria
> India still ranks below *even* China:
>
> http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml
>
> Even China !! ....Not exactly a nation known for Western chess.
>
> What you've told all of us here and presented to all of us is even more
> evidence groups are NOT equal.
>
> Thank you.
So taking world chess rankings as an indicator of national intelligence,
Indians are smarter than:
Germans
English
Scandinavians
Italians
Danish
Swiss
Austrians
Polish
Dutch
Czechs
Belgians
Australians
New Zealanders
Japanese (woooo....to use your expression)
Vietnamese
Hong Kong Chinese (woooo.....again)
Taiwanese (woooooooo........)
etc.
Not exactly an advertisement for your racial IQ superiority, is it?
You are a godd*amn neo-nazi idiot.
RichAsianKid
And you have now just also conceded the point of equality for everyone
to see Mr. Rajah! Thank you!! Such a vely vely smart Indian you must
be!!! Everyone will now see India as some beacon of hope RAK's so
sure!!!! Woooowwwww!!!!!!!!
More seriously more important question and minus all the fun Mr. Rajah:
are people still equal? :)
P. Rajah
All of your so-called "points" simply reflect the achievements of
individuals. But you are extrapolating that into claims of racial
superiority despite the fact that(in the chess ratings, for example),
your claim that China's higher ranking indicates greater intelligence
than Indians is vitiated by India's higher ranking than the countries
listed above, which you previously insinuated had higher national
intelligence than Indians.
No, people are not equal. A fat person is quite likely not as athletic
as a thin person, but the fat person could lose weight and become
athletic, and the thin person could gain weight and become a couch
potato. What you are claiming is that there are physical(genetic)
barriers to intelligence in "inferior" races, allegedly proven by the
state of the economy, which you claim shows Chinese as being superior.
That claim has been thoroughly debunked by the fact that China, after
its glory days of the Han dynasty, sank to third-world status and is
only now emerging from it, with the very substantial help of American
"pure capitalists".
I equate national economies and national development to companies.
Companies that are well-run, with competent executives and a good BoD,
will prosper much more so than those without them. Similarly, good
companies can turn bad, and bad companies can be revived, through these
factors. And so it is with countries. Good leadership and good policies
drive growth and prosperity. I do not forget that Formosa was China's
poorest province prior to 1949. In the space of a scant two decades,
Taiwan was transformed into an economy that outperformed the rest of
China. Somehow, I find it difficult to believe that Taiwanese genetic IQ
magically shot past the other ethnic Chinese in 1949. I also recall my
childhood memories of South Koreans, who typically lived in
straw-thatched homes and were mostly farmers in what was certainly then
a third-world country.
I also remember traveling through Spain and Portugal, when these
countries were "second world", despite at one point having been global
powers. Even parts of Italy seemed to be second-world. Greece has
struggled since the days of the Spartans and Alexander to regain some
semblance of its erstwhile prosperity. But the recent rise of European
pan-nationalism has seen a European effort to bring these countries up
to relatively the same standards as the others.
Fact is, you are the Chinese equivalent of a Klan member, and you will
present straws as beams of wood to support your ludicrous racist claims.
Gods and Monkeys
> RichAsianKid wrote:
> > P. Rajah wrote:
> >> RichAsianKid wrote:
>
> >>> harmony wrote:
>
> >>>> tch, tch. you are not very bright first to not believe me - which is
> >>> a big sin in itself - and then go down this line just because you are
> >>> too lazy to do a google search.
> >>>> but i will put you out of your sins. here it is - your damn evidence:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't make opinions into facts. A trivial mistake an 8th grader would
make. Indians, both in
and out of India are as racist as they come. And you know it and are
proud of it. You fool know no one.
RichAsianKid
Tell us then and please explain in details and educate us what
subsaharan Africans or Australian Aborigines in spite of their modern
low 60s-70s IQ contributed to modern civilization. Or: I'd like to know
why blacks are still oh-so-dismal in not just academic achievement but
also in economic output in the modern world whether it's in America,
Canada, in the UK, or in their own homeland in sub-Saharan Africa.
And if your position is they're not underachieving, tell us please why
are they still endlessly whining?
RichAsianKid says one more time: Just because everyone has adequate or
same nutrition or even a surfeit of nutrition does not guarantee
everyone will be equally tall or 7 feet tall or will live the same
lifespan does it? Environment alone whether it's political system or
just pure 'good intentions' just don't seem quite enough..... :)
harmony
the fact that east european had no priority for basketball.
but now they do. and they are doing pretty well. and perception has changed.
a lot of nba scout masters are now busy going around in east europe - more
so than in west europe.
>Inequality
> needs no real explanation, equality however *does*. An extension
> btw is why are Indians not achieving in the math Olympiad, what's this
> environmental factor this X-factor that caused India's low abysmal
> frankly pathetic achievement. What is it?
it's the 3m, beleive me. the govt of india now says the muslims have the
first right to national resources, leaving the capable hindus high and dry.
as i pointed out, sound governance is the key to national propserity.
btw, chian still ranks pretty low in median income in the world although it
has one of the best educated work force.
>If it's
> about 3m or shitty governments, well, didn't the Indians themselves
> *choose* their own destiny for more than half a century now? If it's
> still the lingering effects about British "exploitation", please, why is
> it Indians allow themselves to be exploited in the first place.
>
well, it is called a mistake, a national mistake.
like many west european countries made the mistake of going socialism, and
now many experts are saying thier govts won't be able to fund retirements
etc, might go bankrupt.
the hindus never had a nation they call theirs in 1000 years. before islam
steamrolled over india, the indian gdp was 30 pct of the world gdp.
now, if you want to make the mistake again of not believeing me, check it
out on google.
the british kicked the muslim rule out, and sucked india dry. in 47 british
left and india was in the grip of socialism-communism which goes on till
date.
hindus will have to get a hindu govt, an impossibility since muslims are
pouring in from pakistan and bangladesh, and given instant citizenship so
congress party can stay in power.
so, the hindus may have it in their genes, but they are checkmated because
of their bad leaders and their liberalism.
considering the hindu grandmasters have no particular support base, and are
self-inspired and selfmade, i would say they have done it very well.
however, i give credit to china for their achievement. but the fact of the
opportunity remains.
it only shows women are smarter and cleverer that they marry up.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Also what about surgeons or neurosurgeons in particular, the best and
>>> brightest *within* medicine. Women are good at their hands so they
>>> should have every advantage and should be overrepresented in surgery
>>> every single possible way! I'd like to know the male:female neurosurgeon
>>> ratios for instance. Where are all these missing dexterous female
>>> neurosurgeons?
>>>
>>
>> oh stuff that nitpickin. if that wasn't the case, you will ask how
> many women got nobel prizes.
>> may lorena bobit date you some day:
>>
> http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/09/us/tearful-woman-tells-jury-why-she-cut-off-her-husband-s-penis.html
>>
>>
>
> Nature is admittedly unfair. Men age like wine; women age like 2% milk.
> An ugly but rich 70 year old man will still retain much more potentially
> greater reproductive power than some rich 70 year old woman. The
> principle of biological *inequality* - inequality again - reigns.
>
> (Is "harmony" some feminist at heart?)
>
lorena is comin at you.
the fact that you don't know the 3m makes you go off topic. why not admit
you don't know 3m.
but chinese leadership knows 3m very well, and have kept them out of china.
the result is just fantastic and out of all proportions and expectation for
china and china proves my point.
P. Rajah
> it's the 3m, beleive me. the govt of india now says the muslims have the
> first right to national resources, leaving the capable hindus high and dry.
Bullshit. You never had your facts straight, and your mind has never had
any clarity, what with all that ganja you keep smoking.
> it only shows women are smarter and cleverer that they marry up.
Not in your case. She certainly made a mistake in marrying a wastrel and
hate-monger like you, and now she has to support your lazy ass.
> the fact that you don't know the 3m makes you go off topic. why not admit
> you don't know 3m.
> but chinese leadership knows 3m very well, and have kept them out of china.
> the result is just fantastic and out of all proportions and expectation for
> china and china proves my point.
So true, the marxist Chinese government has kept marxists out of China.
Brilliant observation!
P. Rajah
Your arguments insist on comparing apples and oranges. For example,
"just because everyone has adequate or same nutrition....". No, sir, in
an economic sense, not everyone has adequate or same nutrition. That is
why communist China remained poor for most of the second half of the
20th century, and why pre-communist China was poor for so many
centuries, why South Korea was so poor until recently. The "nutrition'
China is now receiving is, as I have pointed out, a direct consequence
of the greed of western capitalism in moving the cost of labour and
environmental degradation to a country whose tight authoritarian control
makes it possible. Blue skies in the US and Europe are made possible by
the grey skies over China. Sub-$500 laptops are made possible by Chinese
peasants working for $2 a day at a fatal cost to their own long-term
health.
10 Environmental Issues in China You Didn�t Know About
http://matadorchange.com/10-environmental-atrocities-in-china-that-you-didnt-know-about/
China�s Environmental Crisis
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/08/26/world/asia/20070826_CHINA_GRAPHIC.html
"Pan Yue, a vice minister of China's State Environmental Protection
Administration (SEPA), warned in 2005, "The [economic] miracle will end
soon because the environment can no longer keep pace."
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62827/elizabeth-c-economy/the-great-leap-backward
Oh, and on your(once more) ridiculous equation of the height of
buildings to the state of economic development: France does not have a
single building over 60 stories, and most are less than 30 stories. I
would never make the supposition that China is a more developed country
than France.
Once again, I am not making an India-China comparison(you are), and I
freely admit that China will outperform India for the foreseeable
future. What I object to, and where you have been wrong all along, is
supposing that China's recent performance is purely, or even primarily,
a function of superior intellect. Every argument you have made in that
regard has collapsed on itself, and yet you continue to claim victory by
proclamation.
P. Rajah
> but chinese leadership knows 3m very well, and have kept them out of china.
> the result is just fantastic and out of all proportions and expectation for
> china and china proves my point.
Wake up! China wants to break up India
Kingshuk Nag
Wednesday August 12, 2009
The Chinese have spoken out what we always knew but refused to
acknowledge, caught as we were in the jargon of Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai
and, of late, the rising India-China trade relations.
They want to encircle India from all sides, fan sub-nationalism in India
and break up the Republic. Assamese, Tamils and Nagas along with
Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan and the "decadent " Hindu religion will
all be used to decimate India or rather dismember the great Indian
federation. An article espousing such a strategy has appeared on a
quasi-official Chinese website. So it cannot be taken lightly. China is
not India, where democracy in expression of opinion prevails. On a
quasi-official site, it is an opinion that has possibly some sort of
official sanction.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/masala-noodles/entry/wake-up-china-wants-to
Gods and Monkeys
> kiss-ass harmony wrote:
> > but chinese leadership knows 3m very well, and have kept them out of china.
> > the result is just fantastic and out of all proportions and expectation for
> > china and china proves my point.
>
> Wake up! China wants to break up India
> Kingshuk Nag
> Wednesday August 12, 2009
>
> The Chinese have spoken out what we always knew but refused to
> acknowledge, caught as we were in the jargon of Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai
> and, of late, the rising India-China trade relations.
>
> They want to encircle India from all sides, fan sub-nationalism in India
> and break up the Republic. Assamese, Tamils and Nagas along with
> Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan and the "decadent " Hindu religion will
> all be used to decimate India or rather dismember the great Indian
> federation. An article espousing such a strategy has appeared on a
> quasi-official Chinese website. So it cannot be taken lightly. China is
Idiot! Dumkoff! HIndi Asshole! Do you know what "quasi-official"
means?
It means it MUST be taken lightly. The real problem China has, is that
it
has a gigantic Hindi blackhole filled with hair trigger pea brains for
a
neighbor. English colonialism did India a world of good, now it is
China's
turn, or (better) Korea's turn to do the same.
P. Rajah
> On Sep 9, 1:33 pm, "P. Rajah" <u...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> kiss-ass harmony wrote:
>>> but chinese leadership knows 3m very well, and have kept them out of china.
>>> the result is just fantastic and out of all proportions and expectation for
>>> china and china proves my point.
>> Wake up! China wants to break up India
>> Kingshuk Nag
>> Wednesday August 12, 2009
>>
>> The Chinese have spoken out what we always knew but refused to
>> acknowledge, caught as we were in the jargon of Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai
>> and, of late, the rising India-China trade relations.
>>
>> They want to encircle India from all sides, fan sub-nationalism in India
>> and break up the Republic. Assamese, Tamils and Nagas along with
>> Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan and the "decadent " Hindu religion will
>> all be used to decimate India or rather dismember the great Indian
>> federation. An article espousing such a strategy has appeared on a
>> quasi-official Chinese website. So it cannot be taken lightly. China is
>
> Idiot! Dumkoff! HIndi Asshole! Do you know what "quasi-official"
> means?
> It means it MUST be taken lightly.
No, you dumb motherf**ker, it means that it is a site where the
"official" views can be aired along with something called "plausible
deniability". It's done with a nod and a wink, and only inbred peasants
like you don't understand how it plays.
> The real problem China has, is that
> it
> has a gigantic Hindi blackhole filled with hair trigger pea brains for
> a
> neighbor. English colonialism did India a world of good, now it is
> China's
> turn, or (better) Korea's turn to do the same.
Wait, wait, the obsequious "harmony" will give you a blowjob to calm you
down........
Gods and Monkeys
>
> - Show quoted text -
From the second article:
"That is the headline of an article, in Chinese, on a website said to
belong to the Chinese International Institute of Strategic Studies,"
SAID to belong. From that the writer goes on long train ride of
speculation on Chinese intentions.
As far as you know, the web site could be CIA cy ops. Or Mossad,
Russian, Hindi.
More likely Hindi than Chinese. Why the f*ck would the Chinese reveal
their intentions so? Very un-Chinese
like. But Hindis love to see Hindis in a frenzy. LOL.
RichAsianKid
You're saying good intentions or ideology per se are enough,
correct? Just to clarify. I hope you're not saying a dwarf will have
equal potential in the NBA!
>
>
>> Inequality
>> needs no real explanation, equality however *does*. An extension
>> btw is why are Indians not achieving in the math Olympiad, what's this
>> environmental factor this X-factor that caused India's low abysmal
>> frankly pathetic achievement. What is it?
>
> it's the 3m, beleive me. the govt of india now says the muslims have the
> first right to national resources, leaving the capable hindus high and dry.
> as i pointed out, sound governance is the key to national propserity.
> btw, chian still ranks pretty low in median income in the world although it
> has one of the best educated work force.
China is known as the nigger of East Asia, sweatshop of the world, I've
posted this before. But of course, that's due to some vely vely
oppressive tiny evil yet omnipotent cabal government that somehow
manages to oppress 1 billion people!! Why didn't Indians change their
governments and unshackle themselves from their 3m by the way if Indians
are so smart and so original? Or is it another form of collective
masturbation.
>
>
>
>> If it's
>> about 3m or shitty governments, well, didn't the Indians themselves
>> *choose* their own destiny for more than half a century now? If it's
>> still the lingering effects about British "exploitation", please, why is
>> it Indians allow themselves to be exploited in the first place.
>>
>
> well, it is called a mistake, a national mistake.
> like many west european countries made the mistake of going socialism, and
> now many experts are saying thier govts won't be able to fund retirements
> etc, might go bankrupt.
> the hindus never had a nation they call theirs in 1000 years. before islam
> steamrolled over india, the indian gdp was 30 pct of the world gdp.
> now, if you want to make the mistake again of not believeing me, check it
> out on google.
> the british kicked the muslim rule out, and sucked india dry. in 47 british
> left and india was in the grip of socialism-communism which goes on till
> date.
> hindus will have to get a hindu govt, an impossibility since muslims are
> pouring in from pakistan and bangladesh, and given instant citizenship so
> congress party can stay in power.
> so, the hindus may have it in their genes, but they are checkmated because
> of their bad leaders and their liberalism.
>
You sound like a negro blaming just about everything except yourself!
And less convincing too! Indians have had half a decade of chance thru
democracy thru "people power" to change things. Every single time you
blame your inept government, unlike China, don't you think you are just
really in some roundabout way ultimately blaming yourself?
At least it can be more nourishing than cow's urine, I agree
And never forget the primal power of some dangling American
passport..... ;)
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also what about surgeons or neurosurgeons in particular, the best and
>>>> brightest *within* medicine. Women are good at their hands so they
>>>> should have every advantage and should be overrepresented in surgery
>>>> every single possible way! I'd like to know the male:female neurosurgeon
>>>> ratios for instance. Where are all these missing dexterous female
>>>> neurosurgeons?
>>>>
>>> oh stuff that nitpickin. if that wasn't the case, you will ask how
>> many women got nobel prizes.
>>> may lorena bobit date you some day:
>>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/09/us/tearful-woman-tells-jury-why-she-cut-off-her-husband-s-penis.html
>>>
>> Nature is admittedly unfair. Men age like wine; women age like 2% milk.
>> An ugly but rich 70 year old man will still retain much more potentially
>> greater reproductive power than some rich 70 year old woman. The
>> principle of biological *inequality* - inequality again - reigns.
>>
>> (Is "harmony" some feminist at heart?)
>>
>
> lorena is comin at you.
What about lolita?
Once again, why fight nature, why fight biology?
And if Indians are so smart and adaptive and evolutionarily 'fit' they
wouldn't have allowed this "3m" to neuter themselves to begin with would
they?
Maybe China will be the next Singapore writ large:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3YFl-dY9Qg
And America will be the next India.
RichAsianKid
Why Why Why Mr. Rajah asks us! But RichAsianKid would still like to know
Mr. Rajah's posited first cause of inequality, if not nature or ancient
selection pressures. WHY is there inequality of environment to begin
with Mr. Rajah. Surely you're not blaming recent man-made "injustice" or
"unfairness", or are you? ;)
P. Rajah
You are right, CIA, Mossad, FSB, RAW all operate cy-ops websites from
servers inside China.
So you go from arguing that "quasi-official" means "private", to
claiming that anti-Chinese spy agencies are running these websites from
inside China, which has _the most tightly controlled_ cyberspace in the
world.
> More likely Hindi than Chinese. Why the f*ck would the Chinese reveal
> their intentions so? Very un-Chinese
> like. But Hindis love to see Hindis in a frenzy. LOL.
Clearly, you lack the intelligence to understand how things work in the
real world. Now go back to work:
http://www.made-in-china.com/products-search/hot-china-products/Inflatable_Doll.html
Gods and Monkeys
And what the fuck does that mean- "the most tightly
controlled_cyberspace in the world".
The more you post, the dodgier you get. India deserves to be broken up
with fuck faces
like you.
P. Rajah
http://www.google.com/search?q=china+internet+censorship
http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2006/022706musthaler.html
http://www.networkworld.com/slideshows/2008/051208-how-chinese-internet-is-different.html
Now, if you actually moved out of Los Angeles, and went to China and
lived there for a while, you might realise that you don't have a f**king
clue about how China really works. Not that most intelligent people have
to do that, but mutton-headed commie supporters like you certainly do.
ltlee1
You are right. For example, People's Daily runs an English Forum. All
kind of people are posted on that forum, including one who tried to
recruit people to work for the US military.
.
More germane to the article in question. I read the article. My
reaction is that no serious Chinese will write that article because
its reason on why India should be and could be broken up. The same
reason that China should be broken up.
> The more you post, the dodgier you get. India deserves to be broken up
> with fuck faces
> like you.- Hide quoted text -
harmony
> harmony wrote:
>> the fact that you don't know the 3m makes you go off topic. why not admit
>> you don't know 3m.
>> but chinese leadership knows 3m very well, and have kept them out of
>> china. the result is just fantastic and out of all proportions and
>> expectation for china and china proves my point.
>
>
> And if Indians are so smart and adaptive and evolutionarily 'fit' they
> wouldn't have allowed this "3m" to neuter themselves to begin with would
> they?
>
you are asking the best question that the hindus must come to grips with,
and for that congratulations.
in that light, at this point this discussion must take a political turn - a
different subject than iq and genes etc.
yes, the hindus are not politcally a savvy people.
in fact, they are very naive. and i say so, having spent several months in
at least 20 different countries in all continents. the hindus have no
stomach for politics, plain and simple.
so, the hindus as a people will not be able to get rid of the 3m.
i do not know how the chinese people are in political savviness.
however, they are lucky to have the right, fantastic leaders who have kept
the 3m out, letting the chinese people solidly focus on development.
if you look at the indian poplitical campaigning, it is always about islam,
secularism and all the bs, which have nothing at all to do with anything
that really matters in life but has everything to do with dumbing down of
peoples' intellect, ambitions and aspirations.
but if you were to take the politics out of it for a moment - of course, it
shouldn't be, couldn't be, mustn't be - there is one indicator to go by as
to the relative smartness of the two people when the playing field is level,
which should get rak's juices flowing, and usa provides that opportunity.
i will say the chinese in usa have done relatively better than the hindus.
this is seen in the universities and schools and in professional
institutions where both communities are well represented.
it is easy to see the chinese have the edge, but the gap i do not think is
signigificant.
actually, it so happens - i do not have an explanation for it - that the
hindus are 2nd most propserous community in usa behind the jews, the 3rd are
the japanese, the chinese are not in top 5.
recently i was at two separate topmost universities. i saw the chinese and
hindu students roughly in the same numbers.
now, if you were to focus on political naivette of the hindus, here are
somethings to look at:
- in 1947 the muslims who campaigned for pakistan the most did not migrate
to pakistan but opted to stay put in india. in mahatma's india who would not
walk all over the hindus?
now, if you look at the election campaigns, you will notice that election
after elections, the only major issue that the election money is spent on is
how friendly the politicians are to the muslims - and the only way they can
prove their friendliness is to bash and beliitle the hindus. the latest is
that the prime minister of india declared< "the muslims have the first right
to national resources".
the govt of india subsidises the mosques and madrassas, but loots the hindu
temples. it is the same with kirastanis. the hindus know that they are being
robbed blind, but they are politically too stupid.
- the indian prime minsiter rolls out a red carpet welcome to pope when he
visits india. the pope then says he wants to convert the hindus to
kirastanism.
the kirastanis have scored some spectacular victories. they converted the
whole state of nagaland which is now a no-go zone for the hindus, not
materially different from kashmir.
now, both these states want independence from india!!!! but the hindus are
fine with all that and their govt keeps on pumping money in these two states
to "dissuade" and "smooth out" their hurt feelings.
i can go on till the cows come home on this, but what would be the point?
yesterday's all-inclusive hindu suddenly becomes belligerent partisan after
conversion with a killer instinct, shooting daggers at his own people. i
wouldn't wish that on any people, and i commend the chinese for not touching
3m with a ten foot pole.
now if you argue that politics is a necessary part of the iq and genes,
there is no way for me to argue against that.
P. Rajah
RichAsianKid
Your sincere points are very well-taken and one sticks out: if you're
just "lucky" to have the right, fantastic leaders who have kept the 3m
out etc etc, how can you argue against equality of outcome or socialism
or communism? Not to complicate things here but it's one very convincing
conclusion: blacks are inferior genetically (likewise Indians) and they
therefore can't help it and they *therefore* have to be society's
responsibility. Malaysians say the same thing. Blacks likewise do say
the same thing. Socialism or communism is merely this logical
conclusion. And besides, can't you accept that different economic or
political systems can work best for peoples knowing how they're
different and not equal and not the same.
harmony
i am afraid you are not very bright. you have biting at it for long but you
can't grab it.
i did not ever argue for equality of outcome; it would be stupid to do so. i
argued for people to be left alone by the 3m if they are to have great
outcome to their best potential.
>Not to complicate things here but it's one very convincing conclusion:
>blacks are inferior genetically (likewise Indians)
when equal opporunity is availiable, like it is the case in usa, the hindus
naturally do wonderfully well; seems like they do a shade better than the
chinese - not that it matters a whole lot, but since you are intent on this:
- The annual median income of Asian families was $59,324, about $10,000
higher then the national average. Among top Asian groups, Asian Indians and
Japanese had annual median incomes of about $71,000 each, about $10,000 more
then all other Asian groups.
http://www.ameredia.com/resources/demographics/asian_american.html
take a sleeping pill, you goin to need it.
>and they therefore can't help it and they *therefore* have to be society's
>responsibility. Malaysians say the same thing. Blacks likewise do say the
>same thing. Socialism or communism is merely this logical conclusion. And
>besides, can't you accept that different economic or political systems can
>work best for peoples knowing how they're different and not equal and not
>the same.
some day you will make sense, if you are lucky, but that day isn't today.
Penang
> "RichAsianKid" <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:h89vfa$5cv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > harmony wrote:
> >> the fact that you don't know the 3m makes you go off topic. why not admit
> >> you don't know 3m.
> >> but chinese leadership knows 3m very well, and have kept them out of
> >> china. the result is just fantastic and out of all proportions and
> >> expectation for china and china proves my point.
>
> > And if Indians are so smart and adaptive and evolutionarily 'fit' they
> > wouldn't have allowed this "3m" to neuter themselves to begin with would
> > they?
>
> you are asking the best question that the hindus must come to grips with,
> and for that congratulations.
> in that light, at this point this discussion must take a political turn - a
> different subject than iq and genes etc.
> yes, the hindus are not politcally a savvy people.
> in fact, they are very naive. and i say so, having spent several months in
> at least 20 different countries in all continents. the hindus have no
> stomach for politics, plain and simple.
I think you are full of shit
Saying that the Hindus have no stomach for politics, you are lying
Hindus (and Indians in general) are born political animals, it's in
their genes, in their blood
No matter where you go, when you see put two Indians in a room, they
will come out with 3 political ideologies
And that's a fact
No matter it's in the office, or in the union, or in the politic
itself, you see Indians taking the lead, spouting out a lot of hot air
RichAsianKid
Talk about low intelligence!! How you harmony have embarrassed
yourself!!! I asked you specifically: how can you argue AGAINST equality
of outcome or socialism or communism. Re-read it again. I'm giving you a
hypothetical and now you go off on the opposite? Wow!!!!!!!! Isn't this
another illustration of Indian education I and all posters will now
wonder.......
>
>
>> Not to complicate things here but it's one very convincing conclusion:
>> blacks are inferior genetically (likewise Indians)
>
> when equal opporunity is availiable, like it is the case in usa, the hindus
> naturally do wonderfully well; seems like they do a shade better than the
> chinese - not that it matters a whole lot, but since you are intent on this:
>
> - The annual median income of Asian families was $59,324, about $10,000
> higher then the national average. Among top Asian groups, Asian Indians and
> Japanese had annual median incomes of about $71,000 each, about $10,000 more
> then all other Asian groups.
>
> http://www.ameredia.com/resources/demographics/asian_american.html
>
> take a sleeping pill, you goin to need it.
>
>
Since you misread my whole response let me re-post it here to give you
fair chance to reply. My response was:
"Your sincere points are very well-taken and one sticks out: if you're
just "lucky" to have the right, fantastic leaders who have kept the 3m
out etc etc, how can you argue against equality of outcome or socialism
or communism? Not to complicate things here but it's one very convincing
conclusion: blacks are inferior genetically (likewise Indians) and they
RichAsianKid
Hahahaha, I agree.
How was copper wire invented? Someone threw a penny between two Jews.
Indians too? :)
Penang
A recent case illustrate why the Indians hate the North East Asians
Two MIT students managed to take a photograph of Earth from a very
high attitude, with a budget of less than $150
It's all detailed in www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-328198
Take a look at the names of those two MIT students.... any Indians in
it?
harmony
being rich, not eating at home, this could be your problem:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17718517/
btw, why do you think hindus are at the top in usa if they have low iq? may
be they know where not to go for lunch breaks.
P. Rajah
> "RichAsianKid" <RichAs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h8ko69$o9e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> harmony wrote:
>>[...]
Hopefully, they are not retards like you, spitting on other Indians and
trying to impose your regressive strictures on them. Jackass!