The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle

@strategy

Basically your argument amounts to - for each of our explanations there is a counter explanation, so tell us how do we prove that IQ is genetic! And the simple answer is - you can’t , not with our current knowledge of biology. And in fact, all evidence seems to suggest that the environment does play a big role in IQ.

And my point was never that there is no genetic basis for intelligence, what I said was that there ought to be a large environmental basis for intelligence .
One of the first mistakes that hereditarians make is that they try to separate genes and environment and then ask for percentage for each. This is a HUGE mistake because genes and environments interact. You can only ask for a percentage of genetic determinism if you can keep the environment fixed and no one can do that in our society. You can at best try to control for certain specific factors.
Lewontinn’s video again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we4ZzjKxFHM

You couldn’t understand the very simple example I gave about chess. You are not even close to it! If chess increases IQ like you claim then what do you think the mean IQ of the German chess players was before they spend thousands of hours studying chess? Do you mean they were just 80 IQ and after the study they gained 30 points? Or were they just 70 IQ and gained 40 points? If so then if you take a group of people with just 70 IQ and train them will you still find an excuse that they were not stimulated enough (!) after the failure? What do you think they were in the beginning?

Who said there are 30-40 point increases? I said myself that IQ gain from chess is relatively small. May be 5-10 points on average if played seriously for several years. And the increase will vary from individual to individual based on various factors.
Chess probably improves mainly your spatial working memory, but it doesn’t teach you much abstract and logical thinking.

And in fact, the very idea behind high IQ is that you have to know lots of different kinds of topics or patterns. In general people with greater urge to learn will learn more topics and patterns. However, if you simply put someone in an education program and stimulate them , they can still improve. May be the reason why sometimes IQ starts to fade after the education program stops is because while their knowledge has increased due to the courses, but their interest really hasn’t? In fact, that may be due to many different reasons. For example, a black person might respond emotionally better to a black teacher, but there simply aren’t that many good black teachers!

Not every psychologist accepts the so-called Flynn effect. There may be possible errors while measuring IQ. This doesn’t mean that IQ is changed with the environment. Identical twins can score differently in various tests. In a test one can score higher but in another test the other can due to excitement. This is due to the error. It doesn’t mean that one or the other has gained anything about IQ.

Practically everyone accepts the Flynn effect. The main difference lies in how different people try to explain it. Far more people dispute Rushton’s data.

An IQ difference of 20 points , like observed in some identical twin cases, can’t be just because of excitement error. (And BTW, identical twins share more than just genes.)
And If one can’t even measure IQ properly, why does one try to determine who is superior?
Or perhaps the inability to keep IQ fixed is because IQ itself is not fixed?
Does IQ even exist? Isn’t that defined by just a test score? If I intentionally don’t answer, my IQ is 0 by definition.
Like I said , the only thing Flynn effect proves is that IQ is probably not a real measure of intelligence.

Just name one of those studies

As for you wanting studies, here they are:
I don’t even believe in psychology, or importance of IQ,but since you asked, here it goes—-

As for you wanting studies

1>Music training increases IQ:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6447588/Playing-a-musical-instrument-makes-you-brainier.html

2>http://www.raisesmartkid.com/all-ages/1-articles/16-the-effect-of-music-on-childrens-intelligence

3>http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun06/iq.aspx

3>Education increases IQ:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/medical/health/medical/mentalhealth/story/2011-12-27/IQ-isnt-fixed-at-birth-and-can-increase-with-education/52237552/1
http://socyberty.com/psychology/more-time-in-school-can-increase-iq/
This one is crucial. The study was a natural experiment making it more credible than average studies.  And it’s sponsored by Norway’s government.

Robert Sternberg:“these results—that schooling has a substantial effect on IQ—replicate those of other, perhaps not quite as well-controlled, studies.I am aware of no serious studies that show the opposite result.”
“The results of this study are problematical for the chorus of psychologists and educators still locked in century-old thinking that IQ is genetic, stable and non-modifiable,” Sternberg said. “As, for these individuals, the belief in the stability of IQ is more a matter of religious faith than of scientific inference, I doubt they will be persuaded.”

4>The Head Start program in the United States is a federally funded preschool program for children from low income families. Head Start provides children with activities that might enhance cognitive development, including reading books, learning the alphabet and numbers, learning the names of colors, drawing, and other activities. These programs often have large initial effects on IQ test results and children who participate gain as much as 15 IQ points compared to control groups of similar children not in the program. The educational correlation for IQtest results continues into adulthood, with college graduates typically scoring higher than non college graduates.

A substantial body of research establishes that preschool education can improve the learning and development of young children. Multiple meta-analyses conducted over the past 25 years have found preschool education to produce an average immediate effect of about half (0.50) a standard deviation oncognitive development. This is the equivalent of 7 or 8 points on an IQ test, or a ascent from the 30th to the 50th percentile on test scores.

5>Chess increases IQ:
Like someone posted earlier - there are several studies that demonstrate this.
One of them is sponsored by the Venezuela government. The government was so satisfied, that they introduced chess lessons in schools.

Chess has even been shown to raise students’ overall IQ scores. Using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children a Venezuelan study of over 4,000 second grade students found a significant increase in most students’ IQ scores after only 4.5 months of systematically studying chess.  This occurred across all socio-economic groups and for both males and females.  The Venezuelan government was so impressed that all Venezuelan schools introduced chess lessons starting in 1988-89 (summarised in Ferguson 1995, p. 8).
Also, In 1973-74, a study in Zaire (Chess and Aptitudes) by Dr. Albert Frank showed that introducing chess to teenage players increased their IQ. These players that were taught an additional 2 hours of chess instead of mathematics had stronger spatial, numerical, administrative-directional, and paperwork abilities than the group that did not get introduced to chess.

6>One study, produced in 1975, took place in Belgium, where Christiaen found a chess-playing experimental group of 20 fifth graders experienced a statistically significant gain in cognitive development (IQ) over a control group, using Piaget’s tests for cognitive development (Ferguson, 1995).

7>Studying chess systematically has also been shown to raise students’ IQ scores, academic exam scores (Dullea 1982; Palm 1990; Ferguson 2000, p. 3), as well as strengthen mathematical, language, and reading skills (Margulies 1991; Liptrap 1998; Ferguson 2000, pp. 3-4).  Tournament chess games, which involve clocks to limit the total time each player can use, are also a fun way to provide practice at making fast and accurate decisions under pressure, a skill that can help students cope with the similar pressures of school exams.  This is also a fun way to practise how to put the mind into high gear, where intense concentration increases alertness, efficiency of thought processes, and ultimately mental performance.

http://www.auschess.org.au/articles/chessmind.htm
http://chess.photobooks.com/genesis/web_pages/html/smart.html

8>Eric Turkheimer of the University of Virginia has conducted further research demonstrating that in poor and chaotic households, I.Q. is minimally the result of genetics — because everybody is held back.

9>Working memory training increases IQ, including fluid intelligence. And it can do so in Adults.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6829.full
http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2011/06/14/study-working-memory-training-can-improve-fluid-intelligence/
A recent repeat of this study with little children suggests that the IQ gain persists several months after the training has been stopped .

It must be noted that working memory is a much better predictor of academic success than IQ. And studies suggest that it can be trained like muscles.

10>Here is more on working memory
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/memory-medic/201203/training-working-memory-why-and-how

11>more:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262612000309

12>Here is one more on intelligence and brain-training.

http://www.naturalnews.com/034029_intelligence_brain_exercise.html

13>
Certain teaching methods have produced large gains on SAT scores .
http://www.fairtest.org/redux-test-coaching-works
Records of the averages don’t let you know how much, if any, effort students put into studying before a retake. They do show however that students’ scores improve on average the more times they take the test.

14> Mother’s milk enhances IQ.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7385097.stm
Another environmental gain.

15> Here is an adoption study claiming IQ increases when adopted in better families:
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/15/8790.full.pdf
There are many more.

16> And probably the simplest denial of genetic determinism is the Flynn effect. There is a tremendous amount of data to support. And Flynn effect is larger in less developed countries:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201008/the-flynn-effect-and-iq-disparities-among-races-ethnicities-and-nations-

Some of the above were government funded, but I don’t know why it should matter. Rushton is funded by an organization that supports eugenics. These are certainly more credible than his data. He and Lynn used data from mental treatment wards to determine IQ of aborigines.

And you want more?I can go on for ever.
For example, you can find many more studies in Flynn’s book , Nisbett’s book or other environmental proponents books.
You can probably get some studies here:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/racegen.pdf

(P.S)
Probably one of the most important points applicable to Indians here is number 8>.
Among poor people there is virtually no heritability of IQ.

Looking at how poor many Indians are - 8> coupled with 16> easily solves most of the the mystery of Indian IQ.

——-Head Start provides children with activities that might enhance cognitive development,    including reading books, learning the alphabet and numbers, learning the names of colors, drawing, and other activities. These programs often have large initial effects on IQ test results and children who participate gain as much as 15 IQ points compared to control groups of similar children not in the program. The educational correlation for IQ test results continues into adulthood, with college graduates typically scoring higher than non college graduates.

I have asked you to name studies especially funded by the US government, not to mention ones in Venezuela or Zaire. About the Head start you are obviously lying like a typical Indian that even at adulthood the ones who took the program still scored 15 points higher. No, this is a big LIE. Like that you can find limitless sources about Head Start here is one below saying that at a cost of 4000 $ per child a year in 1993 the program had more than 7 million children and the scores faded out 3-4 years later. First these are not like the studies you mention with no cost at all (like playing chess or guitar in 3rd world countries) but the most respected ones, not only in the US but worldwide. You still can ask if these children were stimulated enough! The study comprises more than 7 million children, not just 20-30 people. Though the Abecedarian was a very small program with only 111 black children it was the most expensive and successful program with only 4.6 points of gain at age 15. I don’t remember how much it was for the Head Start but obviously not 15 points at adulthood as you lie.
http://www.econ.ucla.edu/people/papers/currie/schqual.pdf

As to the study in Norway it doesn’t give any information about the size of the study and if the scores gained are permanent. Even the link you gave states that the students who took the music lessons might already have been self-selected.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun06/iq.aspx
(Schellenberg isn’t sure why music lessons are associated with higher IQ and stronger academic performance, but he has several theories: Children with higher IQs have more cognitive ability to handle the mental challenges of music lessons and school, so music lessons probably exaggerate that advantage. School itself boosts IQ, so the school-like features of music lessons such as learning to read music might also lead to improved intellectual functioning, Schellenberg speculates.)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/medical/health/medical/mentalhealth/story/2011-12-27/IQ-isnt-fixed-at-birth-and-can-increase-with-education/52237552/1
(“The size of the effect was quite large,” she said. Comparing IQ scores before and after the education reform, the average increased by 0.6 points, which correlated with an increase in IQ of 3.7 points for an addition year of schooling, Galloway said.)
http://socyberty.com/psychology/more-time-in-school-can-increase-iq/
(“The extra time at school has a considerable effect on the increase in IQ in early adulthood. But the results are not yet clear whether this applies to all children, or just the children who are involved in this study. A link between higher IQ with education higher has been established, “the researchers said as quoted by BBCNewsHealth, Wednesday (28/12/2011).
But, in fact to determine whether to spend more time in school can actually increase the IQ is very difficult. This is probably because children with higher IQ are naturally choose to spend more time in the education system.)
You make 2 big mistakes. First, some of the links you gave state that the children at early age can improve their IQ with music or chess or whatever. This is not something new but all these faded programs like Head Start and many others have already proved that their IQs go to their genetic orbit in the adulthood. Second there is no information about if the scores are permanent or gained temporarily. Temporarily means there is no gain but intellect because of the concentration. Though America is arguably the most developed country in science and technology it is also the center of the charlatans! Here are 2 studies below which were first claimed to have improved the IQ of the children. Before searching on the internet you should have asked me so that you wouldn’t lose any time. There are absolutely hundreds of studies like these in America but if you sum up all of them they don’t make even one Head Start Program, the most respected one, not even close to it.
http://www.rclub.net/blog/?p=36

In October 1993, Nature magazine published an article by Frances Rauscher, Gordon Shaw, and Katherine Ky about their study in which subjects who listened to 10 minutes of a Mozart sonata prior to taking IQ tests added 9 points to their IQ scores. This research spawned a veritable industry of Mozart products for infants and toddlers (even though the research was performed on college students). Most famous was the Disney Baby Einstein products.
According to The Invisible Gorilla And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us (New York: Crown Publishers, 2010) even though dozens of subsequent tests repudiated this research. Finally, in 2007 researchers at the University of Washington surveyed parents of infants and toddlers in Washington and Montana and found that for infants, each additional hour per day spent watching baby DVDs was associated with an 8 percent reduction in vocabulary, and for toddlers, there was no significant relationship between DVD viewing and vocabulary size.

http://www.neoeugenics.net/bgpe.htm

Posthuma, Geus & Boomsma note that, “The large genetic contribution to individual differences in cognitive abilities is well established. From childhood to early adulthood, the relative impact of genetic factors on cognitive abilities increases and becomes even higher from middle adulthood to late adulthood. Data from four large twin studies from the Dutch Twin Registry, which are partly longitudinal and partly cross-sectional, reflect this increasing heritability of cognitive abilities with age. Shared environmental influences play a role only before adolescence and are of relatively low importance between ages 7 and 16. This pattern of the relative impact of genetic and environmental influences on cognitive abilities corresponds to that found in many other countries.

Figure 9.1
Additive genetic/Shared environment/non-shared environment by age.
50 year old 85/0/15
26 year old 88/0/12
18 year old 82/0/18
12 year old 60/25/15
10 year old 54/26/31
7 year old 40/29/31
5 year old 26/50/24

“In spite of the overwhelming evidence for the existence of ‘genes for cognition,’ actual identification of such genes is limited to neurological mutations with rather severe cognitive effects (e.g., Pick’s disease, X-linked mental retardation, and Huntington’s disease), as reviewed by Flint. Like the many rare diseases and disorders listed in online Mendelian Inheritance in Man, these genetic defects of cognition are largely Mendelian in nature. True polygenes that influence the normal range of cognitive ability have yet to be identified. One route to finding these genes is a better appreciation of individual differences in the anatomy and function of the main organ of information processing, the brain.”
This relationship between genetic, shared environment and non-shared environment has been emerging now for over a decade and sheds new light on the social sciences, educational policy, and social intervention policies. But numerous social programs are slow to respond. The Chicago Tribune ran an article reporting the surprise results of the first test scores around the state of Illinois as part of President Bush’s new program: No Child Left Behind. What they found was that even in wealthy suburban schools, minority students, primarily Black and Hispanic, were still struggling to attain the minimal level of education. But this is not surprising if innate intelligence determines a students success, and not the amount of money spent or the quality of the teachers - these factors count but they are not determinant. The entire article was just a series of new excuses why minorities have so much trouble learning - but never is the genetic component even alluded to.
The changes between genetic/shared and non-shared environments also explains why social scientists have placed so much hope on early intervention programs like Head Start. At the age of five-years-old, as shown in the above figure, genes only account for 26% of intelligence while the shared environment accounts for 50%. These young minority students then, with intensive and on-going enrichment programs, are able to learn and excel far beyond the average of their peers. Then, as they get older, disappointment sets in: the early intervention starts to fade as the genetic component goes to 82% while the shared environment component goes to zero.
No wonder that social scientists and educators have been looking for excuses for this failure for early intervention to persist into adulthood. They assumed that anyone can be equally educated with the right programs. To explain the failures a whole litany of explanations emerged: racism, lack of money for education, crime, slavery, apprehension over test taking, bias in tests, pollution, poor nutrition, belonging to a lower caste, etc. The excuses are endless and at times humorously creative - but they are never formulated into any falsifiable theory and therefore they cannot be tested (typical of most social science research).

@Curious Indian

Ho Ho! I suggest you just ignore this idiot strategy.
Even after you produced studies from all from all over the world and those published in well established journals, even government sponsored ones like he asked, he still has the courage to come up with excuses. Not to mention, he just bypassed most of your important questions and is dragging you to psychological non-sense.

(P.S)
Probably one of the most important points applicable to Indians here is number 8>.
Among poor people there is virtually no heritability of IQ.

Looking at how poor many Indians are - 8> coupled with 16> easily solves most of the the mystery of Indian IQ.

I think you are spot on here.
Indeed the the fact heritability of IQ is very low among poor people might very well explain India’s IQ.
However, I feel that there is also a mismeasure of IQ of India and China.
In India, most of the IQ testing came from the less developed areas, wheras in china, big cities were tested.
Lynn’s has close social relations with various Chinese. That could also add to the bias.
Korea and Japan’s IQ just might be right, but China- I doubt very much.
In fact, Malcolm Gladwell writes that the actual IQ of Chinese in America is actually around 98, not 105. The earlier bias was due to study of high SES families.

So testing bias combined with very low heritability of IQ among poor people might very well explain everything.

@1234

Ho Ho! I suggest you just ignore this idiot strategy.
Even after you produced studies from all from all over the world and those published in well established journals, even government sponsored ones like he asked, he still has the courage to come up with excuses. Not to mention, he just bypassed most of your important questions and is dragging you to psychological non-sense.

Indeed, may be I should just ignore him.

There are just one or two things I am compelled to answer.
First, http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/medical/health/medical/mentalhealth/story/2011-12-27/IQ-isnt-fixed-at-birth-and-can-increase-with-education/52237552/1

“In 1955, Norway began extending compulsory middle school education by two years. Galloway and her colleague Christian Brinch, from the department of economics at the University of Oslo, analyzed how this additional schooling might affect IQ.

Using data on men born between 1950 and 1958, the researchers looked at the level of schooling by age 30. They also looked at IQ scores of the men when they were 19.”

The education increased in Norway was compulsory for men and the IQ was tested at 19 years of age - an age at which it is considered fairly stable. It pretty much negates any counter point that strategy said.

“By looking at a reform which increased mandatory schooling and prevented people from dropping out of school after the 7th grade, it is fairly certain that the effects seen are an effect of schooling on IQ, not vice versa, she explained.”

Second, the head first study was interesting one because they did produce an initial increase of about 10-12 IQ points. Even if temporary, the IQ did increase. Why? And the long term effects were not zero. There was a very small but positive IQ gain. I have also already mentioned possible reasons for why it might be failing.
Also,
The children in Head Start are overwhelmingly poor and minority. They are at high risk of starting school far behind their more advantaged peers, and falling further behind over time. They tune-out and drop-out at alarming rates.
Most importantly, the head start program is only a few weeks long. How can anyone expect a permanent gain from such a brief period?
Remember, IQ is a relative measure

Barnett, Young, and Schweinhart(1998), used causal modeling to show that long-term effects of early childhood education are built upon short-term effects.

Also, some other projects like abecedarian had greater long lasting benefits, including 4 point IQ gain at age 21.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abecedarian_Early_Intervention_Project
Notably, these projects were longer and teacher-child ratio was low.

The rest of strategy’s post is just garbage. He refers to websites like “neo-eugenics.com” disregarding studies published well-established journals, just what you said.

One of the main problems with him is that he is simply unable to understand the concept that
A zillion examples can’t prove a theory, but a single counter-example can disprove a theory.

that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence

Another very important thing he fails to understand is that
The averaged results of a large sample size doesn’t necessarily mean anything, because the good-examples and counter-examples may simply balance each other out.
In fact, if the education program had large samples, each individual samples are likely to get much less attention. So, it actually weakens the argument.
I am much more interested in the counter examples.

I asked him lots of things. He just ignored whatever he wasn’t able to answer. Instead his entire strength of argument rests upon a few study of “averages” that he clings on to like fevi-quick .

BTW, here is evidence that Asian kids’ reading system may improve their IQ
http://www.sq.4mg.com/Chinese.htm
http://www.sq.4mg.com/SpatialIQ.htm

Here is another nice article that states that the assertion that IQ is largely unchangeable is firmly contradicted by empirical findings from a number of sources.
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_11-editionID_60-ArticleID_248-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist\caniq.pdf
The article also fully explains the “fading objection”.

I think you are spot on here.
Indeed the the fact heritability of IQ is very low among poor people might very well explain India’s IQ.
However, I feel that there is also a mismeasure of IQ of India and China.
In India, most of the IQ testing came from the less developed areas, wheras in china, big cities were tested.
Lynn’s has close social relations with various Chinese. That could also add to the bias.
Korea and Japan’s IQ just might be right, but China- I doubt very much.
In fact, Malcolm Gladwell writes that the actual IQ of Chinese in America is actually around 98, not 105. The earlier bias was due to study of high SES families.

So testing bias combined with very low heritability of IQ among poor people might very well explain everything.

Thank you, and I think that is probably the case.
I agree that there might be a testing bias. But like I posted links earlier, even the Chinese reading system may have given them an IQ advantage.

In fact, I can go on forever about how many things can improve the IQ.
I mentioned there is strong evidence music, education, chess,  working memory training, breast feeding etc can improve IQ.

Indeed there are more studies that show that neurofeedback, gaming, tetris or even internet usage can improve IQ. Other studies show:

Meditation can increase grey matter, which has been linked to intelligence.
Juggling can increase certain types of brain cells.
London Taxi drivers literally grow their brain size.
Studies show that new brain cells can grow in adulthood.
Even something like synaesthesia can be induced using hypnosis.

Moreover, Flynn says that the only thing that blacks have obained in the last few decades is slightly better education. Yet, that was enough for them close the IQ gap with whites by 5 points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=8p3mqevjeO8

ABCD you had better stop flattering your fellow curious Indian. First he lied about the Head Start Program like that he lied before about Watson and Einstein. Second what well published articles are you talking about? Here are 3 of the links he sent. The first 2 links are about http://www.pnas.org which needs to deserve attention. Just read what it says there. You really don’t understand anything, do you? The links your fellow sent are about the training of the children. You can change the IQ of the children much easier as they are children because the development of the brain hasn’t stopped yet but at adulthood when the brain finishes its development the genetic effect wins. No matter whatever you do in the past at adulthood the GAME IS OVER in the end! Even the 2 links below which your fellow has sent approves what I say, not him.

As to the 3rd link below it was published as news in Telegraph which doesn’t deserve any attention. It wasn’t published in a scientific issue. What is ridiculous in the news is that the so-called music training has (!) the SAME effect on both children and adults.

All the other links your fellow sent are about the children, not adults. One should ask what happened to those kids in Venezuela when they became adults. German chess players with 2300 ELO scored just 110.

Also your IQ score can change after eating chocolate as well as your other correlates of g like reaction time and glucose rate. Unfortunately this ends after several hours. You can publish an article in a magazine issue that chocolate improves IQ. This will be by no means different than those stupid studies that 10 minutes of listening to Mozart improves your IQ.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6829.full
(Although performance on tests of Gf can be improved through direct practice on the tests themselves, there is no evidence that training on any other regimen yields increased Gf in ADULTS.
In the domain of psychopharmacology, although there is a market for so-called “smart drugs,” there is no study showing evidence for a drug-related increase in Gf in healthy ADULTS although there are certain psychomotor stimulants and D2 dopamine-receptor agonists that have effects on isolated cognitive processes)
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/15/8790.full.pdf
(Finally, we have no data to date indicating that adopted
Children will maintain their IQ gains in adulthood after having left
their family environment. All longitudinal studies have shown
very few IQ changes after adolescence.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6447588/Playing-a-musical-instrument-makes-you-brainier.html
(Lutz Jäncke, a psychologist at the University of Zurich, said: “Learning to play a musical instrument has definite benefits and can increase IQ by seven points, in both children and adults.
“We found that even in people over the age of 65 after four or five months of playing a instrument for an hour a week there were strong changes in the brain.)

No my dear strategy, the study subjects in pnas working memory study were young adults(university students). Your comprehension skills are poor.

There were a few follow up studies in various countries on various age groups including children. Working memory training has yielded positive effects each time. The positive effects are clearly visible even after 4 months. This reminds you of muscle training rather than drugs. Of course, there are drugs too that can increase your IQ temporarily- but I didn’t mention them because these drugs only work for a few days at best.

I am well aware of mozart effect and have always been skeptical about it. That is why I never mentioned it. Don’t put words into other people’s mouth.
However, musical training(not just listening) does produce long term gains in IQ. I can show you even more such studies.

And in every adoption study where IQ dropped with time, so did the environmental and motivational factors. And even after the drop, there is a positive gain as adults.

@Curious Indian

Yes, I agree with you. I saw that Flynn video. He says that developing countries are catching up. That is interesting! Since you mentioned gaming, I found this video:
http://www.complex.com/tech/2011/11/researchers-believe-gaming-increases-iq-scores
Apparently, the speaker suggests that the Flynn Effect was caused largely because of gaming. There was also a mention of an Indian guy named Ananth Pai.

Curious Indian either you have terrible reading comprehension skills or you are a perfect liar. You need to check what is written there. Nowhere in the text has it said they were university students. They were lastly tested when their mean age was 13.6 years. Certainly one can’t apply to a university when he is 13 or 14 years old. Secondly at the end of the conclusion there is a confession that there is no data to date indicating that adopted
children will maintain their IQ gains in adulthood. Adolescence and adulthood are different. Third there is another paragraph talking about the regression to the mean effect. Though it claims that the gains up to adolescence cannot be solely due to regression to the mean (again the genetic effect) it also confesses that it should be at least partly. If you don’t know what regression to the mean is do a search to learn it, don’t waste my time.
The 2nd link belongs to John Ray, the author of this article in this page. He refuses Flynn Effect.
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/15/8790.full.pdf

IQ
scores were obtained for 65 subjects. The mean age for
adoptive placement was 57.7 months (SD57.5). The mean age
for IQ testing before adoption was 52.6 months (SD 5 7.2).
The mean age was 162.6 months (SD 5 22.8) for testing after
adoption.

From a methodological point of view, the IQ gain cannot be
solely due to regression to the mean.

Finally, we have no data to date indicating that adopted
Children will maintain their IQ gains in adulthood after having left
their family environment. All longitudinal studies have shown
very few IQ changes after adolescence. The present study has
evaluated at adolescence (mean=13.6 years) the effect of a total
environmental shift that took place at the end of early childhood
(between 4 and 6 years of age) for children who had low IQs at
this early stage.
jonjayray.tripod.com/geneiq.html
If I take my sociologist’s hat off, however, and re-don my psychometrician’s hat, there is another interesting explanation for the Flynn effect: It could be an “artifact” (not a real effect—i.e. maybe real IQ did not rise at all). Why?
Because, although scores on all sorts of IQ subtests (puzzle categories) rose during the 20th century, they did not rise evenly. And the scores that rose least were for those problems that loaded most highly on ‘g’ (See e.g. here). The implication is that scores on a perfect measure of ‘g’ would not have risen at all.
So how do we explain that? There is no general agreement but the commonest explanation among psychometricians is that the rise in measured IQ reflects increasing test sophistication. Kids now spend MANY more years in the educational system than they once did and although there is probably little to show for that overall, kids DO get a lot of practice in passing tests of various sorts. And practice may not make perfect but it would be surprising if test-taking skills and strategies (such as guessing when you are not certain) were not improved by many years of extra practice at taking such tests.
But, whichever way you look at it, it is clear that the Flynn effect does not weaken the case for saying that IQ is substantially genetically determined. It simply suggests what are the circumstances for making the most of our genetic inheritance. And, sadly for those who hate the idea of genetic influences, the IQ increases have not closed the usual big gap between average black and white IQ levels. Negroes have forged ahead but whites have forged ahead too. And, if U.S. education results are any guide, the black-white IQ gap may even have widened in recent years.
There is an adoption study that focuses on income summarized here which gives similar results to studies of IQ. Excerpt:
The graph below is from a fascinating new paper, What Happens When We Randomly Assign Children to Families?, by Bruce Sacerdote. Holt’s International Children’s Services places children, primarily Koreans, with families in the United States. Holt has an interesting proviso to their adoption contract, conditional on being accepted into the program, children are randomly assigned. Sacerdote has collected data from children who were adopted between 1970-1980, and thus who today are in their mid 20’s or 30’s, and their adoptive parents.
The graph shows how parent income at the time of adoption relates to child income for the adopted and “biological” (non-adopted) children. The income of biological children increases strongly with parental income but the income of adoptive children is flat in parent income.
In other words, as with IQ, family environment had NO EFFECT on achievement. Kids adopted into high income households did no better than kids adopted into low income households. Only genetics made a difference: Very contrary to lots of popular assumptions and a bitter pill for Leftists to swallow but those are the facts. And, given that the measurement of income is a lot less controversial than the measurement of IQ, the concordance between income and IQ studies could well be seen as particularly impressive.

@1234

Indeed, it’s very likely that gaming contributed at least partially to the Flynn effect.

Unfortunately, there aren’t too many Ananth Pais in India who try to integrate gaming with education. There have been some efforts, but very very shallow ones.

Sougata Mitra’s earlier work hole in the wall was also partial success
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRb7_ffl2D0

But we need something more well planned and organized than these methods.

@indian strategy

Wow! I was talking about the working memory training article and I think I made that clear. I am not even that much interested in adoption studies as they tend to be more prone to errors.

“Participants and Procedure.

For this study, we conducted four individual experiments involving a total of 70 healthy young participants (36 female; mean age, 25.6 years of age; SD, 3.3) recruited from the University of Bern community, “

And secondly, in the adoption study what the author writes is :
Finally, we have no data to date indicating that adopted children will maintain their IQ gains in adulthood after having left their family environment. Looks like you completely overlooked the bolded part .

Generally, the IQ of a person is considered fairly stable among most people after age 13. (If the IQ drops or increases much, it can only be environmental influence. ) The writers themselves stated that fact - “longitudinal studies have shown very few IQ changes after adolescence”. So IQ at age 13.6 is fairly likely to be very close to adult IQ.

Even the guy you claim that denies flynn effect actually admits that there has been a gain in IQ, essentially confessing that the Flynn Effect occurs.What he claims is that there has been little gain in the most “high -g-loaded” areas.

Now this is somewhat misleading because:
1> There are many different degrees of g-load and one can selectively pick “high g-load”. G, like I said , is simply a measure of correlation.
2> Tests like Raven’s progressive matrices are considered the most g-loaded tests. Yet these type of tests show the highest gains.
3> Now some specific high g-loaded subtests of some high g-loaded tests like “vocabulary “, “general knowledge” show very little gain. But like I said earlier,  these do have a cultural bias - not just across countries , but even within countries among different social groups of people.
4> The developing countries show much greater Flynn effect than the most developed countries- such as the scandinavian countries.

And lastly, I have never said that genes do not play any role. Rather, what I have been telling is that genes cannot “determine” anything by itself as genes and environment interact.

Anyway, I don’t have much time nowadays, except may be on Sundays, and I don’t want to waste my Sundays on useless stuff like these with someone as biased as strategy.

So, I will take 1234’s advice and stop. So this is probably my last post.

In case there was ever any misunderstanding - I don’t have anything against anyone - I have respect for the whites, the chinese, the other east- asians,  the jews or any other group I left out - I just wanted this stupid racism to stop , but I am too powerless, I guess.

@Curious Indian

To be honest, I just wanted you to ignore him, but I guess I can’t blame you if you don’t have the time.  I agree with you completely again - indeed, the Flynn Effect seems to be an increase of fluid g and abstract thinking. The brain is plastic and environment plays a strong role. Personally, apart from agreeing with you about the environmental influence, I also think that IQ is overrated. There are other kinds of intelligence which are possibly more important.

Anyway, I was really inspired by that video of Sugata Mitra. Extremely interesting! I ended up watching a lot of Sugata Mitra videos - his other talks in various places. I can see potential in his method.
I think his 2010 TED talk was awesome- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk60sYrU2RU

You misunderstood what he says. There is no test which has a g loading of 1. The IQ test which has the highest g loading is said to be the best predictor of the success in the other tests. He says that if we could measure the g perfectly (we can’t) there would be no rise in g. That we can’t measure g perfectly doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Suppose there are 5 types of tests, A, B, C, D and E. If A has the highest g loading and if you increase it by practice and training you will also change the correlations (unless if you also can increase the scores of the other tests) and the test will no longer have the same predictive value for the other tests and it will have a lower g loading. Generally vocabulary is said to have the highest g loading. Surely no one takes the dictionary and memorize it. It is useless. But if everyone did it the g loadedness of vocabulary would decrease. So you see, the concept of g has its insurance in itself. No IQ test can measure g, the real intelligence.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000778
IQ scores provide the best general predictor of success in education, job training, and work. However, there are many ways in which IQ scores can be increased, for instance by means of retesting or participation in learning potential training programs. What is the nature of these score gains? Jensen [Jensen, A.R. (1998a). The g factor: The science of mental ability. London: Praeger] argued that the effects of cognitive interventions on abilities can be explained in terms of Carroll’s three-stratum hierarchical factor model. We tested his hypothesis using test–retest data from various Dutch, British, and American IQ test batteries combined into a meta-analysis and learning potential data from South Africa using Raven’s Progressive Matrices. The meta-analysis of 64 test–retest studies using IQ batteries (total N = 26,990) yielded a correlation between g loadings and score gains of − 1.00, meaning there is no g saturation in score gains. The learning potential study showed that: (1) the correlation between score gains and the g loadedness of item scores is − .39, (2) the g loadedness of item scores decreases after a mediated intervention training, and (3) low-g participants increased their scores more than high-g participants. So, our results support Jensen’s hypothesis. The generalizability of test scores resides predominantly in the g component, while the test-specific ability component and the narrow ability component are virtually non-generalizable. As the score gains are not related to g, the generalizable g component decreases and, as it is not unlikely that the training itself is not g-loaded, it is easy to understand why the score gains did not generalize to scores on other cognitive tests and to g-loaded external criteria.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6829.full
However, it has been demonstrated that <em>practice on these tests decreases their novelty and with that the underlying Gf-processes (5) so that the predictive value of the tests for other tasks disappears </em>(17). These findings are compatible with a long history of research on cognitive training in psychological and educational science showing that, although performance on trained tasks can increase dramatically, transfer of this learning to other tasks or domains remains shockingly rare (18–21).
http://bussorah.tripod.com/nyborg.html
Primary Ability…............................. g Loading

.................................................. Low IQ / High IQ

Fluid Intelligence (gf)..........................89….. .80
Visual Processing (gv)........................88….. .77
Processing Speed (gs)..................... .95….. .75
Long-Term Retrieval (glr)................. .69….. .65
Crystallized Intelligence (gc)........... . .84….. .39
Auditory Processing (ga).................. .81…... .65
Short-Term Memory (gsm)............... .72….. .39

Anyone who has been to India will immediate notice that the whole country smells of raw feces. Open defecation is ubiquitous. The 81 probably explains for much of the phenomenon.

  communism rules! on April 29, 2012, 12:20 AM | #

  In 1978 India’s nominal per capita GDP $200, China’s $150, yes back then india was a little bit richer than China. For most part of the last 100 years india was little bit richer than China.

  Today india is $1060, and China $3800. India has changed only a little. But China for some odd reasons has completely Changed only in the last 30 years.

  Communism > Democracy.

Communism > Poverty
Capitalism > Porsperity

Following World War II the Communist Party in the People’s Republic of China abolished most forms of private property and eliminated the rule of law. Competitive markets were outlawed and without the profit incentive, entrepreneurial activity ground to a halt. Through the 1950s and 1960s the standard of living for the average Chinese citizen actually fell to levels below those that existed during the Ming Dynasty and programs such as the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward destroyed human and physical capital throughout the country. After Mao Zedong’s death things began to change for China. Observing the growing prosperity of ethnic Chinese residing in the Pacific Rim outside China, Deng Xiaoping rightly concluded that if Chinese could create wealth outside China they could create it within China. Deng chose to adopt policies of wealth instead of policies of poverty and began a slow, methodical process of introducing the institutions of capitalism into Chinese society.

Following World War II, North and South Korea, as we know them today, were a single country with a
uniform population, shared history, common culture and identical standards of living. The paths of
these two nations diverged when the institutions of poverty, embraced by China, descended from the
north and the institutions of capitalism were fostered in the south. Without the rule of law, without
private property rights, without competitive markets and without entrepreneurial activity, North Korea
has become one of the true pariah states in the world. Its citizens live in a perpetual state of starvation
and fear and human rights are non‐existent.

By contrast over a period of fifty short years the south has become one of the Tigers of Asia with high
standards of living, low infant mortality rates, high literacy rate, and endless opportunity.

We don’t have a test which has a g loading of 1 (=100 %). But the author says that as long as the test gets a higher g loading the score gains diminish. If test A has a g loading of 60 % and test B has a g loading of 80 and if there are 4 points of gain in test A and 2 points of gain in test B then it means there will be ZERO GAIN in an imaginary test which has a g loading of 100 %. Surely there is no test like this but the trend of these tests from low g to high g proves it. We really have no evidence that any subset of IQ test is less important than g but the concept of g through intercorrelations is important for proving that score gains in any test isn’t generalized to all kinds of tests because then otherwise g would be improved.

The word ‘liberal’ is used for different meanings. It is the opposite synonym for both ‘racist’, ‘conservative’ and ‘Republican’. I myself believe in the racial differences in IQ and other personal traits but support ‘open trade’ and ‘freedom of thought’ as a liberal. Wealth is more dependent on trade than racial differences. Suppose that one is both a good tailor and a good doctor and he can work mostly 8 hours a day. How many hours should he work as a doctor and a tailor? Surely as a doctor he can earn much more so he should work 8 hours as a doctor and give clothes to a tailor. The same idea goes true for the countries. If France produces both wine and textile much better than the other countries and if produces wine better than textile comparatively then France should export only wine and import textile. The main principal of comparative advantage theory in international trade is clear: just focus and select the most profitable areas and sacrifice everything else. This is necessary for the reallocation of resources. While France is doing this (exporting only wine and importing textile) its foreign trade volume (import plus export of the goods & services) gets bigger. So trade volume of a country is a very good economic indicator of how efficiently the resources in the country are allocated. There are many indicators in http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/eco-economy&all=1 The m.ost important one is
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_tra_of_gdp-economy-trade-of-gdp

If 2 countries have the same population approximately and if one has a much bigger trade volume than the other then it means it is using a better reallocation of resources. How does the population affect? As the population gets higher the importance of the trade volume gets lower as there is also the trade within the country. For example UK has 56 % volume of its GDP and France has 53 %. If they get unified as one country (meaning that the population gets higher) their export and import with each other need to be excluded and subtracted from the new item. So while doing a fair measure the population needs to be paid attention. The least crowded countries should be at the top. Anyway I am skeptic about the population of India. Is it really lower than China or about 1.6 billion like some people claim so? If it is 1.2 billion (official) then India is at the 167th place while China is the 125th. If China is more crowded then it means it is using its resources more efficiently. It means India doesn’t use its potential efficiently.

I think the best way of supporting creativity is supporting arts. In order to benefit more from trade volume the governments should support arts, not sports because there are some very important relationships between the personality traits of liberalism and arts.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x/full
Openness was the largest unique predictor of political orientation.
As in all but one of the other samples, higher scores on Openness were significantly associated with increased liberalism. Conscientiousness was the second largest unique predictor of political orientation (b = .15, SE = .02, β = .08, t[17097] = 10.02, p < .001), indicating that higher scores on Conscientiousness were again associated with increased conservatism
Conservatives’ bedrooms tended to include more organizational items, including event calendars and postage stamps. They also contained more conventional decorations and items, including sports paraphernalia, flags of various types, American flags in particular, and alcohol bottles and containers. In general, conservative bedrooms were somewhat neater, cleaner, fresher, organized, and well lit. They were also significantly more likely to contain household cleaning and mending accessories such as laundry baskets, irons and ironing boards, and string or thread. These results appear to confirm theoretical contentions that concerns with cleanliness, hygiene, and order are related to political conservatism (see Table 1). Conservative offices tended to be more conventional, less stylish, and less comfortable, in comparison with liberal offices.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/1974/00000002/00000001/art00008
Conservatism, especially as measured by the CI, also correlated significantly with low self concept, conformism, materialism, provincialism, intolerance for ambiguity, traditional family ideology, and authoritarianism

Looks like it’s game over for China - the lame. All they’ve accompished in the last 25-26 years was disproving the validity of many contests. China’s high contest rankings not correlating with their contributions clearly proves that the Chinese are genetically incapable of contributing, or are artificially raising their rankings, or both.

Whenever the Chinese do contribute something independently it’s always a contribution that requires no originality, like improving something or making a simple observation. This is shown throughout history.

Chinese worship white people and are just like robots. In the future once computers become faster and can learn and copy things well, how useful will the Chinese be?

All of China’s success just comes from artificial measures and culture, not from any real authentic genius. We would’ve expected any civilization that had the culture to build machines for more than 2,000 years like China did to at least have figured out steam technology or an advanced plumbing system, but China didn’t. I wonder what would’ve happened in history if the Greeks, Egyptians, Sumerians, or Indians would have had the culture to build machines for more than 2,000 years like China did. It’s just by luck and chance that the Chinese were the only ones to have the culture to build machines for more than 2,000 years.

We also would’ve expected any country that’s ranked as high as China has in math contests for 25 years to have at least 5 Fields Medals out from China, instead China has 0. So all China’s done is disprove the validity of the IMO and many other contests.

I think the Chinese should continue to copy, not contribute, and worship white people.

Indians contributing disproportionally more than they should clearly indicates that India will easily surpass China in basically every field by around 2030.

Since the year 2000 India already has 1 Fields Medal equivalent (the Abel prize), also the Rolf Nevanlinna prize, the AKS Primality test (first ever proven primality testing algorithm in polynomial time developed in India), and Manjul Bhargava will likely win a Fields Medal in 2014 since Bhargava has already subsumed Gauss. So within a 7-8 year time period there would’ve already been 1 ethnic Indian Fields Medal, and 1 Indian Abel Prize, that’s 2 Fields Medal equivalents in a 7-8 year period compared to China’s contributions in the last 30 years with a higher literate population, higher average IQ, and better performance in contests.

India already has more modern day mathematical talent than China does (Manjul Bhargava, Akshay Venkatesh, Kannan Soundararajan).

Once India becomes more developed Indians will likely be winning Fields Medal every year that one is given out while all China will be doing is copying and not contributing.

With a lower literate population, average IQ, and performance in contests than both East Asians and Europeans, Indians already have:
World’s youngest to score a perfect on the SAT -  Vinodhini Vasudevan
World’s youngest doctor (learned calculus at age 4) - Balamurali Ambati
Youngest standing professor at Princeton - Manjul Bhargava
World’s youngest film director - Kishan Shrikanth

Tathagat Avatar Tulsi - prodigy, received an undergraduate degree at 10 years old
Priyanshi Somani - Mental Calculator World champion
Akshay Venkatesh - prodigy, graduated at age 15
Viswanathan Anand - Current World Chess Champion

An average IQ of 81 and a lower literate population than both East Asians and Europeans doesn’t match into this data so most of India’s average IQ is just lowered by environmental and health factors.

With a literate population that’s over 1400 million, a high average IQ and high performance in book-style contests we should expect all of these prodigies and geniuses to be East Asian, not Indian.

I guess East Asians must have very few geniuses (if they have a high average IQ the standard deviation must be low).

We already know that in the US Indians have an average IQ of 112 similar to the Jews, and that Indians in almost all non-Indian countries have a much higher average IQ than 81, so most of India’s IQ is lowered by environmental and health factors.

An average IQ of 81 is actually good considering all the malnutrition in India (60% of India was recently underweight), illiteracy, and lack of access to education. Once Indians eliminate these environmental and health factors lowering the average IQ in India, India’s average IQ should go up to around 96-102 and India will have more geniuses than both East Asians and Europeans.

In India there are many ethnic groups with genius IQs:
- Unmixed Brahmins (who all seem to have some form of photographic memory)
- Certain Vaishyas (descendants of the Indus Valley civilization)
- Tamil admixtures
- Many others

So in the near future India will have a higher population of geniuses than both East Asians and Europeans, making average IQ not as relevant, and India will take over basically every field.

The primitive Chinese mind can’t contribute anything requiring originality. Just compare Tao to Bhargava. Tao’s significant contributions all come from stealing ideas from Whites where as Bhargava’s display high originality and independence. Tao’s primitive mind can’t handle Princeton generals, he’s just a UCLA boy.

Green-Tao theorem vs. Bhargava’s Gauss composition laws - Bhargava wins, Bhargava has subsumed Gauss himself, Bhargava’s new Gauss composition laws have found deep applications, have changed mathematics, will continue to find deep applications, and would’ve most likely never been made without Bhargava, the Green-Tao theorem would’ve probably been proven by Timothy Gowers or someone else

Improved Wolff’s bound vs. Bhargava’s special case proof of the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture - Bhargava wins again, Tao’s improvement is highly unoriginal and has virtually no effect on mathematics and would’ve most likely been done by someone else, Bhargava actually proved a special case of one of the Millennium Prize Problems

Bhargava spent his childhood playing and socializing, Tao spent his childhood studying and preparing for contests yet he still nearly failed with Princeton generals. All Tao has done his whole life is study, and he still does even today.

The Chinese just can’t compete with Indians in mathematics because being a mathematician has to do with contributing not with winning math contests.

Just look at the intelligence needed for China’s inventions:
Hey look I’m Chinese “Let’s think of a writing system…I got it, let’s just use a different symbol for each word, this way if we have a million different words we’ll need a million different symbols, it’s efficient, it’s an efficient writing system”

Hey look I’m Chinese “Let’s think of an eating utensil…I got it, let’s just use two sticks, that’s a good idea, then let’s use some special techiques to hold the sticks just for eating food, it’s a 2-stick 16-step technique system, it’s efficient, it’s an efficient method”

Looks like it’s game over for China. It doesn’t matter what anyone (including self-hating Indians) say, India will take over every field and surpass the world in the near future.

India has already won the war. The Chinese are just all talk and contests, there’s no room for contributing. It’s already over for China.

If we go by population density, even Nigeria is more crowded than China, and India is more crowded than Japan see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

If this had been the year 1996 (10 years after China started performing well in contests) I’m sure lots of people would’ve predicted great contributions out of China, but that didn’t happen.

With the population density, literate population, average IQ, and high contest ranking advantage we should expect the Chinese be contributing the most by now, but they aren’t.

Building up infrastructure doesn’t require a genius IQ, just funding, so nothing China’s done really demonstrates genius.

The main reason China was only slightly ahead of India is because China is much larger with more space. India has more challenges because India is so crowded.

The reason why the Chinese only talk about contests, building up a strong economy and other things not related to contributions is because the Chinese aren’t capable of contributing. Once China is developed all they’ll be doing is copying, improving, and making contributions that require no originality.

Once India’s literate population goes above 90% and India’s internet usage goes above 30% India would’ve already far surpassed China in contributions and almost everything else.

India has lots and lots of genius IQ ethnic groups, since the Chinese are homogeneous they have very few. The reason why they perform well in book-style contests is because self-discipline predicts GPA and the Chinese are unusually cruel so Chinese students have more pressure. Even people with IQs in the high 90s can get 100% scores on calculus exams, it’s just self-discipline.

lol, south asian talk about how east asian including chinese disprove validity of science contests? South asians can’t win any of the contests that require intellectual rigor, period, even when indians sends hundreds of thousands of their best minds to compete every year. Anything south asians including indians participate in, they fail on the grandeur level, including all of their so called high-iq sub-groups. On the contrary, these scientific contests just proved south asians including indians not only can’t compete with east asians on the intellectual level, but neither on the character level. if south asians can’t win a contest, they simply trash the contest. south asians are so absurd, they are bordering ludicrous.

south asians are obsessed with whites and jews, constantly worshiping and compare themselves with them, yet south asians simply don’t have the same intellectual capability to achieve at whites/jew’s level.  south asians pride themselves as better english speakers, thanks to their former colonial master, without british colonization, the sub continent would be in a even worse shape than it is today. even with their democratic societies, and white countries help, they continue to demonstrate they can only parrot/imitate what their british/american masters do, yet can’t show any capability or even potential to become anything significant.  the fact is, once china becomes a free thinking/democratic society, china, along with rest of the east asian will simply pull further ahead, japan is a good example how china will become economically and scientifically and times 10000. India will simply be pakistan/bangladesh times 10000.

even chinese growing up in a non-democratic, non free thinking society beats indians hands down in scientific contributions, imagine how a democratic and free thinking china will become, it will just walk all over south asians. the fact that south asians have so few nobel winners compare to east asians simply demonstrate south asian have already reached limit in their capabilities, even as they enjoy free thinking/democratic societies. On the other hand, the number of nobel prize japan has won demonstrates what china will become in the future. if chinese were given even 1/10 of free speech/thinking rights as indians do, china will win 15~20 field medals / nobel prize for every one by an indian. The fact is, south asian including Indian have already reached their intellectual limit, they have already received many technology transfers from their british/american masters, they have democratic/free thinking societies and abilities to speak in their colonial master’s tongue. yet south asians still can’t compete with the chinese in science, even as china is barred from receiving american/european high tech products, and even as china has a political system that ruthlessly stifles creativity.

all those indian proclaimed “world renowned/respected/genius indian contributors”, lol, are of course indian claims. just like how indians claim IITs are the best in the world only to find out their no-one—heard-of-besides-indians treasured university are ranked way behind dozens of chinese schools and toward the bottom of the ranking. south asians worship whites, taking pride in speaking white master’s language, actively courting white people, seeking their technological and financial help, yet white people still don’t give them time of the day, lol… why? maybe south asian just aren’t capable? yet, even as chinese and americans treating each other like enemies, and even as american bar all high tech transfers to china, chinese still top indian in every scientific field. of course, south asians will continue be obessessed with their white/jew masters and dream of immigrating to their countries at all cost, all the while east asians are creating new world order, both politically and scientifically with china at the top and take pride in speaking their OWN LANGUAGES.

One thing I do admire about south asian are that they are always so optimistic about the future, like “in 20 years, we’ll surpass… win every… “, or flat out make up lies like “1 in 5 of ... are indians, 1 in 3 of .... are indians”, you fill the blank. bragging and lie are such a normal features of south asians, it’s like part of their DNA, lol.

indian claims chinese only excel in contest but haven’t been able to translate that into contributions. but indians not only has less contributions than the chinese, they don’t even stand a chance in any intellectual competition. iqs in the 80s indeed… wonder what’s hindering more indians from getting educated, china was able to educate more people than india even at the time when chinese economy was devastated by communism, and people were much poorer than indians. i bet IQ does make a difference.