-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fun With Maps!
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Georgia, Armenia & Azerbaijan
Why is it considered WTF? I play soccer with some folks with those origins.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
The average Chinese does not have an IQ > 105. 
Skwim
Veteran Member
Prove it.The average Chinese does not have an IQ > 105.
As well as Africans being mentally handicapped. Funny how that map lines up rather neatly with the dominant racist viewpoint in the West.The average Chinese does not have an IQ > 105.
It's generally the person making the claim that has to prove it, although in this case, it's hardly a 'hard' scientific claim.
But my first thought would be that the study this information is based on the Lynn and Vanhanen studies, since the results seem about the same, and I'm unaware of other similar globally testing. They relied on test results gathered by various third parties. How much trust you put in IQ results under the control of the Chinese government is up to you, I guess.
In any case, IQ as a concept is pretty flawed, and the Flynn Effect can explain global variance more effectively than 'smartness' can, imho.
For further reading...
The Flynn Effect and IQ Disparities Among Races, Ethnicities, and Nations: Are There Common Links?
That aspect of this study caused major controversy at the time it was published...
It's somewhat explainable though. The problem is that people see IQ as an effective measure of inherent 'smartness' or potential. It's really more flawed than that. Things like literacy levels impact on results.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Whether or not it's a "hard" scientific claim is not something I'd pursue, and I'm certainly not going to stand behind it. That would be up to the map maker---I'm nothing more than the messenger here. On the other hand, DavidFirth is more than just the messenger of someone else's remark. HE claimed "The average Chinese does not have an IQ > 105," and is therefore accountable for its truth. So, prove it Davy.
I don't regard the concept of an intelligence quotient as flawed, but do see many difficulties in its measurment, interpretation, and application. As my first year psychology prof once told the class: Intelligence is what intelligence tests measure. Want to take it further than that, then you're on your own.
So, semantically, you'd be comfortable with 'theres no good evidence that Chinese IQ is over 105'? Makes more sense to me.
I disagree with your professor, but it may depend how he defines 'intelligence'.
As stated in my earlier posts, education and cultural experience impacts on IQ results, with the Flynn Effect being a common shorthand of this. Common parlance tends to see 'intelligence' more as a capacity to learn rather than a measure of learning.
That mismatch causes these sorts of discussions in my opinion.