(March 5, 2016 at 6:01 pm)paulpablo Wrote:(March 5, 2016 at 1:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Stanford-Binet is the test with which IQ is determined.
Me, I think you're using IQ and intelligence interchangeably when they are not the same thing at all.
I think your analysis is deeply flawed because it makes no mention of things like natural resources, location on trade routes, history of the locale where the nation is and many other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the native intelligence of the people living there.
It's not an analysis, it's just an observation. You have one part of the world where the inhabitants achieves high on IQ tests, a history of innovation, highly dominant in the technology market and the people from these places occupy high IQ jobs and achieve high comparatively to others in school tests, along with a long lifespan, good economy, relatively good crime rate.
And as for natural resources, Chinese companies are mining in Africa, which leads me to believe there must be at least some natural resources that are lacking in China that are't lacking in Africa. There are some theories that say a lack of resources is actually a cause of some groups of people developing higher intelligence, without environments rich in immediate resources people have to develop forward planning, agriculture, tools and so on.
And then you have countries around central Africa that are basically the opposite, high crime rate, bad economy, not much innovation in recent history, no significant technological discoveries or significant technological market, they score low on the IQ tests, altogether that to me would point to the fact that maybe the inhabitants have lower IQ.
It is indeed an analysis, incomplete thought it is, and one with which I heartily disagree. As for the Chinese exploiting African resources, that requires money as well as intelligence. Have you factored that in? It also requires in most cases a well-developed heavy-industry sector. Have you taken that into account?
I stand by my point. Simply reiterating your, uh, opinion is no way to support it.