PDA

View Full Version : "Smart Fractions": Why Europeans Outperform East Asians



OneEnglishNorman
Tuesday, October 17th, 2006, 07:37 PM
Fantastic article. I will try to summarise the important parts, but here are the links:

La Griffe du Lion (http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/)
Smart Fraction Theory of IQ (http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com//sft.htm)
SFT II: Why Asians Lag (http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com//sft2.htm)

-------------------------

Most intelligent populations will have bigger "smart fractions". Who occupies this fraction? Doctors, surgeons, teachers, senior admins, senior managers, venture capitalists, skilled mechanics... the kinds of jobs that make market economies run well. The smart fraction occupies the high end of the IQ curve:

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=83157&stc=1&d=1161108690


Smart Fraction Theory asserts that a nation's per capita GDP is determined by the population fraction with IQ greater than or equal to some threshold IQ. Consistent with the data of Lynn and Vanhanen, that threshold IQ is 108, a bit less than the minimum required for what used to be a bachelor's degree.Per capita GDP versus average IQ. Note that East Asians score higher on average IQ than whites, yet their GDP is lower.

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=83158&stc=1&d=1161108888

Why is this the case? East Asians have narrower distributions of various abilities, including IQ. East Asians have very high national IQs but relatively small smart fractions. To make East Asian and white smart fraction equal would require the Asian IQ distribution to have a standard deviation 39 % that of the white.

Here are the two smart fractions illustrated;

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=83161&stc=1&d=1161109167
SFT over-estimates GDPs for East Asians. This is solved by using verbal IQ data (verbal-analytical-reasoning-judgement) as opposed to general IQ which includes verbal and visuospatial.

East Asians have the highest IQs of all peoples except for Ashkenazi Jews. But this is owed to extraordinary visuospatial ability, at the expense of verbal shortcomings. Verbal IQ is far more important in regard of economic productivity.

Again, with general IQ. Notice the discrepancy.

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=83162&stc=1&d=1161109816

Now solely with verbal IQ.

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=83163&stc=1&d=1161109889
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=83164&stc=1&d=1161109889
It all comes together! Hope you enjoyed reading this.

SineNomine
Tuesday, October 17th, 2006, 10:39 PM
You've mentioned before that whites tend to have higher IQ's when it comes to the extremes, and now the smart fractions (in which again whites excel). A question: can this account for higher creativity? According to some experts on the matter the reason white civilisations consecutively dominate the world is that whites have more creative minds, compared to the intelligent, but narrow-minded East Asians. No matter how you look at it, these studies are always damning to blacks. :D

Kurtz
Tuesday, October 17th, 2006, 11:06 PM
What many WNs refuse to see is the high level of low IQs white people, as showed in the 3rd graphic. Asians have a waaaayyyy less important group of stupid people than we do. It's great our people have the highest creativity and largest small fraction, but in the same time we should get rid of Occident's junk people. In my point of view, seeing this kind of study should motivate us to find original eugenics ideas as well as to work on our creative potential instead of simply bashing other races (ie blacks)

Janus
Tuesday, October 17th, 2006, 11:08 PM
There are two things I don't like at all at that, and most other tests aswell. First of all this strange comparison with GDP. What has the GDP to do with that? The other issue is that it is grossly generalised. White can mean everything from nordid to armenoid aswell as Asian can mean tungid, north,middle,southsinid and even palaemongolid. I'd like to see subraces in direct comparison.

Oswiu
Tuesday, October 17th, 2006, 11:13 PM
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=83161&stc=1&d=1161109167

This seems highly unnatural to me. Who knows, it may be true that the Mongoloids are far more uniform across the board, possibly pointing to a severe bottle-necking of their original stock some time in the distance prehistoric past, but I doubt it.
Who were those measured, to gain an average of the separate populations? Was it chiefly urban types in Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and the Chinese seaboard? Was it even based on the successful Orientals in the USA [already a highly selected group]? What about the average peasant in Guizhou province, or the Hui republic? I'm sure you'd get a far more 'normal distribuition' were they taken fully into account, but I can't imagine researchers have bothered to go into the deeper inland rural communities.

East Asians have the highest IQs of all peoples except for Ashkenazi Jews. But this is owed to extraordinary visuospatial ability, at the expense of verbal shortcomings. Verbal IQ is far more important in regard of economic productivity.
Aye, reminds me of the uncanny visual processing abilities of the Australian natives.

It all comes together! Hope you enjoyed reading this.

Absolutely, cheers!

OneEnglishNorman
Wednesday, October 18th, 2006, 12:16 AM
This seems highly unnatural to me. Who knows, it may be true that the Mongoloids are far more uniform across the board, possibly pointing to a severe bottle-necking of their original stock some time in the distance prehistoric past, but I doubt it.
Who were those measured, to gain an average of the separate populations? Was it chiefly urban types in Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and the Chinese seaboard? Was it even based on the successful Orientals in the USA [already a highly selected group]? What about the average peasant in Guizhou province, or the Hui republic? I'm sure you'd get a far more 'normal distribuition' were they taken fully into account, but I can't imagine researchers have bothered to go into the deeper inland rural communities.

AFAIK, Professor Lynn synthesises from many, many IQ studies. The critical fraction data is based on his IQ and the Wealth of Nations book.


Aye, reminds me of the uncanny visual processing abilities of the Australian natives. Australian Aborigines have an unusually great ability to remember where they last placed an object, or saw a landmark. This is evolved through necessity of their wandering existence, I will maybe start a thread on that soon once I locate the sources.

Kel`Thuz
Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 04:19 PM
In my point of view, seeing this kind of study should motivate us to find original eugenics ideas

the only 'eugenic' idea which works efficiently is called Free Market Economy. There's nothing new one can invent to get rid of the junk people. Unfortunately, these junk people constitute the majority of the electorate.

Loki
Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 04:33 PM
Nice to be a "smart fraction". ;)

symmakhos
Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 04:36 PM
This seems highly unnatural to me. Who knows, it may be true that the Mongoloids are far more uniform across the board, possibly pointing to a severe bottle-necking of their original stock some time in the distance prehistoric past, but I doubt it.

But isn't it true that the tendency towards conformism is far greater among east Asians than any other people? In the long run, the cultural imperative not to depart from the norm may have influenced sexual selection, so that those who were too stupid or too bright to conform properly were deselected.

Kurtz
Sunday, October 22nd, 2006, 10:12 PM
the only 'eugenic' idea which works efficiently is called Free Market Economy. There's nothing new one can invent to get rid of the junk people. Unfortunately, these junk people constitute the majority of the electorate.

Never has a public eugenicist plan been applied or tried. Some politicians such as Churchill were in favor of eugenics, but in the same time never did the liberal democracies would accept any kind of eugenics. In that sense, you're right: in the actual system, it's next to impossible to get rid of feeble-minded people.

SineNomine
Sunday, October 22nd, 2006, 10:23 PM
the only 'eugenic' idea which works efficiently is called Free Market Economy. There's nothing new one can invent to get rid of the junk people. Unfortunately, these junk people constitute the majority of the electorate.
Remove welfare, and voila. :) Of course there will always be the bleeding hearts amongst the rich (and not so rich) that will provide for the weak...at least it won't be compulsory. ^^

Tyrsson
Monday, October 23rd, 2006, 01:35 PM
Australian Aborigines have an unusually great ability to remember where they last placed an object, or saw a landmark. This is evolved through necessity of their wandering existence, I will maybe start a thread on that soon once I locate the sources.

I'd like to read this thread. I'm from Australia and have never heard of this?!

Oswiu
Monday, October 23rd, 2006, 03:13 PM
I'd like to read this thread. I'm from Australia and have never heard of this?!
Here it is;
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=80014
:thumbup

ikki
Monday, October 23rd, 2006, 08:00 PM
Never has a public eugenicist plan been applied or tried. Some politicians such as Churchill were in favor of eugenics, but in the same time never did the liberal democracies would accept any kind of eugenics. In that sense, you're right: in the actual system, it's next to impossible to get rid of feeble-minded people.

And naturally so, theyare the ones keeping the current cleptocratic traitors in power. Rather a exam that one has to pass in order get to vote, a exam that would ensure those morons never could vote.
Then, by time proper institutions might be set up.

BuzKlown
Saturday, November 11th, 2006, 03:06 AM
Following from Richard Lynn's Web Page:


My book IQ and the Wealth of Nations (co-author Tatu Vanhanen of the University of Helsinki) (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002) considers the problem of national differences in wealth and economic growth. Economists and other social scientists have been trying to solve the problem of why some nations are so rich and others so poor since Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776). We argue that an important but hitherto unrecognised factor is the IQs of the populations. We give measures and estimates of average IQs in the world’s 185 nations and show that national IQs are strongly related to national incomes and rates of economic growth. The principal reason for this is that nations whose populations have high IQs can produce goods and services that command high values in international markets. See below for more details of this argument and on the IQs of every nation in the world.

My most recent book published in 2006 is Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. Atlanta, Georgia: Washington Summit Books (PO Box 3514, Augusta, GA 30914) ISBN 1-59368-020-1 pp. 318., US$37.95 HB), $20.95 (PB) (plus $6 for overseas orders).
A review by Prof.J.P.Rushton in Personality and Individual Differences is given below.

Lynn’s book represents the culmination of more than a quarter of a century’s work on race differences in intelligence. It was in 1977 that he first ventured into this field – some would say minefield – with the publication of two papers on the IQ in Japan and Singapore. Both showed that the East Asians obtained higher means than white Europeans in the United States and Britain. These initial studies were criticised, but the present book lists 60 studies of the IQs of indigenous East Asians all of which confirm the original claim.

Hitherto studies of race differences in intelligence have been largely conducted and discussed in local contexts. In the United Sates they have been largely concerned with the IQs of whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Native American Indians. In Australia they have been concerned with the low IQ of the Aborigines, and in New Zealand with the low IQ of the Maoris. These differences have typically been explained by racism and discrimination of Europeans against minorities the legacy of slavery, although a number of writers have posited a significant genetic factor (Jensen, 1998; Rushton and Jensen, 2005). Lynn’s book differs in taking a global perspective and consists of a review more than 500 studies published world wide from the beginning of the twentieth century up to the present. He devotes a chapter to each of ten races, differentiated by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza (1994) into “genetic clusters”, which he regards as a transparent euphemism for races.

His conclusions are that the East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) have the highest mean IQ at 105. These are followed by the Europeans (IQ 100). Some way below these are the Inuit (Eskimos) (IQ 91), South East Asians (IQ 87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific Islanders (IQ 85), South Asians and North Africans (IQ 84). Well below these come the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67) followed by the Australian Aborigines (IQ 62). The least intelligent races are the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert together with the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54).

After the ten chapters setting out the evidence for each of the ten races there follows a chapter on the reliability and validity of the measures. These show that the studies have high reliability in the sense that different studies of racial IQs give closely similar results. For instance, East Asians invariably obtain high IQs, not only in their own native homelands but in Singapore, Malaysia, Hawaii and North America. To establish the validity of the racial IQs he shows that they have high correlations with performance in the international studies of achievement in mathematics and science. Racial IQs also have high correlations with national economic development, providing a major contribution to the problem of why the peoples of some nations are rich and others poor. He argues further that the IQ differences between the races explain the differences in achievement in making the Neolithic transition from hunter-gathering to settled agriculture, the building of early civilizations, and the development of mature civilizations during the last two thousand years.

Lynn tackles the problem of the environmental and genetic determinants of race differences in intelligence and concludes that these contribute about equally to the phenotypic differences. He argues that the consistency of racial IQs in many different locations can only be explained by powerful genetic factors. He works out the genetic contribution in most detail for the sub-Saharan Africans. His argument is that sub-Saharan Africans in the United States experience the same environment as whites, as regards determinants of intelligence. He argues that they have as good nutrition as whites, as shown by their having the same average height in studies going back to World War 1, and they have approximately the same education as whites. He presents evidence that blacks in the southern states have very little white ancestry and have an IQ of about 80, and that proposes that this can be adopted as the genotypic IQ of blacks, i.e. the IQ that blacks attain when they are reared in the same environment as whites. The IQ of blacks in sub-Saharan Africa is a good deal lower at 67. Hence, the adverse environment in sub-Saharan Africa, which he regards as consisting principally of poor nutrition and health, contributes about 13 IQ points to the low IQ in sub-Saharan Africa. Lynn’s estimate is not too different from that advanced in 1969 by Jensen to the effect that about two thirds of the low IQ of blacks in the United States is attributable to genetic factors, and the more recent estimate of Rushton and Jensen (2005) that the figure is around 80 percent. Lynn has (unsurprisingly for those familiar with his work) put a bit more weight on the genetic factor.

The last three chapters are concerned with the book’s subtitle (An Evolutionary Analysis) and discusses howrace differences in intelligence have evolved. He begins by putting the problem in context by summarizing Jerison’s (1973) classic study showing that during the course of evolution species have evolved greater intelligence in order to survive in more cognitively demanding environments. For instance, in one of the most dramatic of these developments, early mammals evolved larger brains and greater intelligence to survive in the nocturnal environment, for which they needed to evolve larger auditory and olfactory analysing centres in the brain.

The same principle, Lynn argues, explains the evolution of race differences in intelligence in humans. He elaborates the argument he has advanced over the last fifteen years that the race differences in intelligence have evolved as adaptations to colder environments as early humans migrated out of Africa. In North Africa and South Asia, and even more in Europe and Northeast Asia, these early humans encountered the problems of having to survive during cold winters when there were no plant foods and they had to hunt big game to survive. They also had to solve the problems of keeping warm. These required greater intelligence than was needed in tropical and semi-tropical equatorial Africa where plant foods are plentiful throughout the year. He shows that race differences in brain size and intelligence are both closely associated with low winter temperatures in the regions they inhabit. For instance, he gives a figure of 1282 cc for the average brain size of sub-Saharan Africans, as compared with 1367 cc for Europeans and 1416 cc for Orientals. His analysis relating race differences in intelligence to exposure to low winter temperatures has recently been independently corroborated by Templer and Arikawa (2005).

From time to time Lynn notes anomalies in his theory that require explanations. One of these is that the Europeans have made most of the great intellectual advances and discoveries, while the East Asians, despite having a higher IQ have made relatively few (as extensively documented by Murray, 2003). Lynn proposes the explanation for this may be that the East Asians are more conformist that Europeans and this inhibits creative achievement. He also notes one or two anomalies in his cold winter theory of race differences in intelligence. The most striking of these is that the Inuit have been exposed to the coldest winter temperatures and have evolved large brains, the same average size as that of the East Asians. Yet their IQ is only 91, and this is the IQ obtained by those who attend the same schools as Europeans. To explain this anomaly he proposed that two genetic processes must be assumed to explain the evolution of race differences in intelligence. The first of these is that differences in the frequencies of the alleles for high and low intelligence have evolved between races such that the alleles for high intelligence are more common in the races with the higher IQs and less common in the races with the lower IQs. The early humans that migrated out of Africa and spread throughout the world would have carried all the alleles for high and low intelligence with them, but those who colonized Asia and Europe were exposed to the cognitively demanding problems of survival during cold winters. Many of those carrying the alleles for low intelligence would have been unable to survive during the cold winters and the less intelligent individuals and tribes would have died out, leaving as survivors the more intelligent. This process would have reduced and possibly eliminated the alleles for low intelligence, leaving a higher proportion of the alleles for high intelligence. The more severe the winter temperatures, the greater the selection pressure for the elimination of low IQ individuals carrying low IQ alleles. This process explains the broad association between coldest winter temperatures and IQs and brain size.

He now suggests that there must have been a second genetical process that several new alleles for high intelligence must have appeared as mutations in some races but did not appear in others, and once these had appeared they were never transmitted to other races. These new mutant alleles for high intelligence would have been most likely to appear in large populations because a mutation is a chance genetic event and hence would have been more likely to occur in races with large populations than in those with small. The Inuit comprised only very small populations numbering today around 55,000, so they would be unlikely have had mutations for higher intelligence that have to be assumed in the East Asians and Europeans. Once a new mutant allele for higher intelligence had appeared in the East Asians and Europeans it would have conferred a selection advantage and would have spread throughout the group of around 50 to 80 individuals in which people lived during the hunter-gatherer stage of human evolution. It would then have spread fairly rapidly to adjacent groups because hunter-peoples typically have alliances with neighboring groups with which they exchange mating partners, and it is reasonable to assume that this custom was present for many thousands of years during the evolution of the races. These alliances of groups are known as demes, and a new mutant allele for higher intelligence and which conferred a selection advantage would have spread fairly rapidly through a deme. From time to time matings would take place between demes and by this means new mutant alleles for higher intelligence would spread from one deme to another and eventually throughout an entire race.

However, this would take some considerable time, and Lynn proposes that in 25,000 years, consisting of approximately 1,000 generations, an advantageous allele would be transmitted about 800 miles. Hence, an advantageous allele occurring as a mutant in the region of, say, Beijing, 25,000 years ago would not yet have spread outside China and would take another 50,000 years or so to reach the Inuit peoples of far North East Asia and even longer to cross the Bering Straits into Alaska. In addition, there are geographical barriers of high mountains between the East Asians and the Inuit that would have imposed a further impediment for the new alleles for higher intelligence being transmitted from East Asia northwards. He extends this explanation to the low IQs of the Australian Aborigines and Bushmen. These have only been small populations, so the chance of mutations of high IQ alleles in them would have been low.

To the arguments presented by Jensen (1998) for a substantial genetic determination of the difference in intelligence between blacks and whites in the United States, Lynn adds a more general one. He advances the general principle of evolutionary biology that wherever subspecies, strains or races have evolved in different environments they invariably develop differences in all characteristics for which there is genetic variation as a result of mutations occurring in some subspecies and of adaptations to different environments, and asserts that intelligence cannot be an exception. He concludes witheringly that “The position of environmentalists that over the course of some 100,000 years peoples separated by geographical barriers in different parts of the world evolved into ten different races with pronounced genetic differences in morphology, blood groups and the incidence of genetic diseases, and yet have identical genotypes for intelligence, is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to deny the importance of race. Or both “. So much for the assertion of the American Psychological Association’s task force under the chairmanship of Ulrich Neisser set up to produce a consensus statement on what is known about intelligence that concluded that there is no persuasive evidence for genetic race differences (Neisser et al., 1998). With the publication of Lynn’s book it will never again be possible to make this assertion and retain any credibility.

Over the years Lynn has made a number of important contributions to the field of intelligence. He has written the standard works on the dysgenic processes that have been taking place almost worldwide for the last century and on how these could be addressed (Lynn, 1996, 2001). He has shown that the problem of why some nations are rich and others poor is largely explained by the intelligence of the populations (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002). He has overturned the century long consensus that there is no sex difference in intelligence by showing that men have a higher average IQ than women by approximately 5 IQ points (Lynn and Irwing, 2004). But I would guess that the present book documenting global race differences in intelligence and analysing how these have evolved will come to be seen as his crowning achievement.
Link: http://www.rlynn.co.uk/

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, November 11th, 2006, 04:20 AM
I am almost positive that the black IQ curve would be even much flatter thant the white. This means there are blacks which are very smart but the actual number of very smart blacks is very, very small. On the other hand, dial in the Chinese curve. Even as sharp as it is and as low a percentage as it is, the actual number of very smart individuals would be tremendous simply because of population size. So, by this theory, the Chinese, with their large number of superior IQs, should be running the world inspite of the fact that their average IQ is not that high, since it is the numbers of these high end people which matters in powering a country.

This whole exercise in statistics is an effort to find some numerical formula to excuse the fact that Asians lack a certain spark of intelligence and innovation which we recognize in each other but which we know is lacking in them.

SubGnostic
Thursday, November 16th, 2006, 03:30 PM
Remove welfare, and voila. :) Of course there will always be the bleeding hearts amongst the rich (and not so rich) that will provide for the weak...at least it won't be compulsory. ^^

Amen! Sink or swim. You atleast have some kind of sanctions for welfare bums there in Britain, don't you?


This whole exercise in statistics is an effort to find some numerical formula to excuse the fact that Asians lack a certain spark of intelligence and innovation which we recognize in each other but which we know is lacking in them.

It's usually whites and jews behind new scientific breakthroughs. East asians tend to be innovative with existing technology.

We should somehow drag up the tail of the white curve. Or alternatively sink it.

SineNomine
Thursday, November 16th, 2006, 09:41 PM
Amen! Sink or swim. You atleast have some kind of sanctions for welfare bums there in Britain, don't you?
To my knowledge, Britain isn't as tolerant of welfare leeches as other countries such as France. Of course, give Labour a few more years in power, and that is bound to change...