Hi Koya Azumi, Good to hear from you again. Somehow, I thought you'd left FW list years ago! (I've addressed you in Quaker fashion, forgetting for the moment which is your first and last names. My apologies for this.)
At 20:42 24/09/02 +0900, you wrote: <<<< Hi Keith: I'm back, but have been lurking. Am glad to see this list and you thriving. You are speaking of different IQ scores by groups. One fundamental issue is how IQ is measured. Is there now some standardized measure that is applicable equally across languages and cultures? Is there an IQ test that does not use a written language (such as English, Chinese, etc.)? Is there a test that is universally applicable? >>>> Yes, chronometric tests, which are culturally objective, and which measure reaction times to very simple perceptual choices, or prompts, have a high correlation with the rather more typical IQ performance-tests which have been developed in the last 50 years or so. Such chronometirc tests also correlate closely with non-verbal, and largely culture-free IQ tests which use choices between graphic symbols of well-known (often natural) objects. Average IQ scores for the three main races of mankind -- African blacks, European whites and Orientals -- also correlate with average brain size (80/1267cc;100/1347cc;106/1364cc respectively). (AC) >>>> How do you know that the Ashkenazi Jews IQ is 116 and that of Chinese in coastal region is 106? Did they take a same test? Or were they tested in their respective languages? If so, are the tests comparable? >>>> Yes, care is taken to correlate them carefully in order to avoid the cultural bias that could otherwise invalidate results. I'd refer you here to books such as Arthur Jensen's "Bias in Mental Testing", "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, and "Race, Evolution and Behavior" by J. Philippe Rushton, which correlate and compare IQ test results among different races. (AK) <<<< There are individual variations in IQ. Some people are more creative than others, but are there group variations in creativity? I am not at all convinced that there are. >>>> Creativity certainly depends on other factors than IQ (such as persistence at a particular skill or a particular problem) and there appears to be no direct relationship of creativity with IQ, but studies tend to show that almost all highly creative people (Nobel Prizewinners, for example) seem to require IQs above about 120/130. Arthur Jensen has written an essay on this -- "Giftedness and Genius: Crucial Differences" -- and this is in "Intellectual Talent" (John Hopkins Univeristy Press), edited by C. P. Benbow and D. Lubinski. (AK) <<<< I'd much rather assume that all persons and groups are potentially equally creative. We know that creativity is culturally channelled. Depending on what is considered important, people focus their creative vent in different institutional realms such as religion, art, music, literature, polity, etc. and not necessarily science and technology. >>>> Yes, I'd like to assume this, too. (AK) <<<< If the Ashkenazi Jews seem to have the highest IQ among the human race, then that has to be explained. If coastal Chinese have higher IQ than inland Chinese, that has to be explained. >>>> As far as the Ashkenazi (central European) Jews are concerned, a sort of double selection event seems to have taken place. Firstly, King Boleslav of Poland granted a charter to Jews from the east in 1264 (which probably attracted the more enterprising and intelligent), followed by further waves of Jews (again likely to be predominantly of successful Jews such as bankers who upset the powers-that-be) who were persecuted in countries of western Europe during the next few hundred years. By the mid 17th century about 30% of all the Jews in the world lived in Poland. From then onwards, all these Ashkenazi Jews in central Europe were then subjected to repeated, and often terrifying persecution which meant -- one assumes -- that only the brighter part of their population managed to survive. Then, of course, great numbers of the survivors left in a whoosh for America from about 1870s onwards, and a great deal of the remainder for Israel after WWII. As for the Chinese (and Japanese, of course) of the eastern seaboard of Asia, it is now being increasingly believed (on the basis of DNA sampling) that this high-IQ branch of the human race arose from the first large migration out of Africa and along the sea coast eastwards at the time of the retreat of the penultimate Ice Age. By the time that the last Ice Age came down there was probably a distinct north-south divide in IQ. When the last Ice Age retreated and further migrations out of Africa took place, then a new "hybrid" east-west mixture of intermediate IQ developed -- the Europeans. (AK) <<<< Your post seems to imply that an important determinant of IQ is education. I agree. It is nurture and not nature. Dividing people by their ascription (as in Ashkenazi Jews and coastal Chinese) does little to explain their achievements. >>>> Most of those who are actively engaged in studying and researching IQ are in large agreement that IQ depends mostly on genes but, of course, cultural and educational environment are also very important. It's a very contentious subject, of course. I was very much a "nurturist" for the first -- what? -- 40 years of my life and I found the gathering evidence from research scientists to be very uncomfortable indeed because it ran counter to the whole of my political philosophy up until then. As for me, I decided over the last few years that the evidence wasn't going to disappear and I gradually became persuaded that individual achievement is due both to genes and environment. But I hope you will not be offended if I say that I don't want to be drawn into a controversial discussion of nature versus nurture. This debate is being carried on by far more knowledgeable person than me. The reason I wrote my original piece this morning is that I wanted to try and sketch what I thought would be the hubristic consequences of the clique that is now gathered around Bush in its desire to dominate future supplies of Middle East oil and gas. Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
