A recurrent topic at iSteve is trying to estimate the long term average IQs of the two most populous countries, China and India. If you want to know what the world will be like in a generation, a question that is interesting to investors, strategists, and anyone with a general interest in the human race, then one of the really big, obvious, but seldom-asked questions is: what is the IQ potential of the populations of the two biggest countries?
Obviously, there are a fair number of very smart Chinese and Indians in the West. But a big question is: How deep is the bench in each country?
The consensus of Western observers going back to Marco Polo has been that the average Chinese has a fair amount on the ball. We need to learn far more about regional and class differences within China, but it seems likely that the national average will shake out into the three digit range.
India, however, seems much more complicated than China. For one thing, while the Chinese like to paper over their differences to present a show of unity and harmony to the world, the Indians have tried to increase their internal differences through the caste system, endogamy, and the like.
Moreover, Indian historical inventions tend to be rather more esoteric than Chinese historical inventions. For example, the medieval Chinese had a natural gas drilling and pipeline industry not all that different from the modern natural gas industry. Using bamboo for pipes, Chinese drilled up to a couple of miles deep, and piped gas up to 20 miles to use in city streetlights, something Europeans, for example, didn't catch up with until the 19th Century. In contrast, the Indians invented the concept of zero.
Natural gas drilling versus zero is an obvious apples and oranges comparison. I don't really know what to make of it. (Another aspect is that we have quite good records from much of Chinese history, but terrible records for most of Indian history)
Some Western intellectuals such as Schopenhauer, were greatly impressed by the profundity of Indian thought. On the other hand, a Western genius who knew India well, Kipling, was not as impressed. (Kipling was the kind of guy who would have been more impressed by a working natural gas industry.)
A few years ago, I published a lengthy attempt by Rec1Man to estimate the long-term potential for Indian average IQ. Here's NSAM's summmary of the revised version. He came up with 94, which sounds plausible to me, but I certainly don't know enough to comment on the components.
Here's another Indian's attempt at pulling together some of the evidence. I'll give away the bottomline, which is that Pensive Brahmin comes up with the same number: 94.
Indian IQ: Contained within is an alternative to the rec1man model of Indian IQ - it is not very structured but instead a mess of observations as a citizen.
First off, I think we can all agree that the 81 figure in Lynn &Vanhanen's 2002 is deeply suspect, and does not tally with the historical record of highly advanced Indian civilization. Noted here is the fact that malnutrition at the moment in India exceeds that in sub-Saharan Africa by a significant margin, and the simple removal of that malnutrition certainly makes up a huge portion of the 1 S.D. gain of blacks from Africa to the U.S.A.
And Lynn & Vanhanen emphasize the role of nutrition in raising average IQs (including micronutrients -- South Asians suffer a lot from iodine shortages, which can lead to cretinism).
IQ is segregrated by caste. Castes are still chiefly endogamous even in relatively modernized areas, and thus there is genetic IQ difference. It seems likely that Brahmin > Kshatriya/Vaishya should be the usual IQ stratification among the upper castes or dwijas.
After this broad division - contrary to what most would say - the subdivisions are very murky. Parsis perform on a Brahmin level or above it. The Kayasth - an administrative Kshatriya subcaste - have contributed 1 nobel laureate - Amartya Sen - and are competitive with Bengali Brahmins in Bengal. They seem to have done well in the sciences - Satyen Bose of Higgs boson fame for instance. Tamil Brahmins dominate the IITs , as well as hard sciences and mathematics. Compare with the Bengalis, who have nobels in economics and literature.
Visual-Verbal split ? Quite likely, imo. The backward castes and dalits follow the forward castes. Backward castes do quite well in some places - dalits not so much.
Factors depressing Indian IQ at the moment include poor literacy and nutrition, but also Islam. Nutrition as I noted earlier is worse than SS Africa. Literacy is rising, and with any luck will keep maintaining the strong growth it has now. [ Incidentally, it would be interesting to study Sri Lankan IQ - highly literate, low malnutrition, similar racial makeup with South India...and the only study we have is one way back in 1954 with a sample size of 46, that too on eight year olds, when IQ is not very heritable. The figure of 79 it gives is quite meaningless in the present context. ]
Islam needs a whole book unto itself. It promotes intellectual coma to a degree that no other religion can. I am positive that the Middle-Eastern IQ would be higher if those nations simply converted to something like Judaism. Sephardim , I think, illustrate my point by outscoring Arabs comfortably
There are various racial minorities in India. Of note is the fact that Mongoloid populations in the NE region - similar to Thailand/Tibetan/Burmese people underperform compared to the rest of the country. All these regions fall below average income and are not very developed. Since Thai IQ is 91, this puts a floor on true Indian IQ of somewhat above 91.
Interestingly, the eastern city of Kolkata has held a sizeable minority of Chinese. They do not have any history of academic excellence per se, and are more famous for bringing their cuisine to India. Perhaps a segment of the left half of the Chinese curve, as I do not believe that Indians have a mean IQ above 105.
Raw Income/IQ/Academic data from the diaspora
With the significant retarding effects on Indian IQ in India, we must look elsewhere.
In the U.S.A, Indian Americans outperform the Chinese. But they are highly selected and barely representative, and hence unsuitable as samples.
In the U.K., the Indian sample is quite representative of India. Lynn in his Race Differences in Intelligence gives some figures for Indians in Britain -
87 - 1967 , 91 - 1978 , 94 - 1983 , 97 - 1985 , 87 - 1992 [ 97 data point for Indians resident in Britain for 4+ years - the study used FoB immigrants scoring 83 as a comparison. Since this shows clear environmental influence, the FoB score which has presumably been environmentally deflated has been removed. ]
Unfortunately, Lynn has fudged the original Mackintosh data points, as Mackintosh mentioned in his review of the book.
Using Mackintosh's review as a basis, the data points become 87, 91, 94 , 97, 97, 91. You can read the relevant portions of his review at Dienekes :
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-massaged-data-from-richard-lynn.html
Well, you have to massage the data to account for the Flynn Effect. But that makes it more likely for errors to creep into the process.
The IQ in the UK averages out to 93, which does not square with the Indians outperforming whites in terms of education and income. Perhaps a further relative flynn has taken place since 1992 ? Or perhaps culture is a huge bonus for Indians.
British school tests have a huge gender gap, with girls badly outperforming boys within each racial group. I don't know whether there's something wrong with the tests or with boys in Britain.
Mauritius - Mauritius is a mostly lower caste-based sample of Indians and may be taken as a lower estimate. The Mauritian IQ is 89 for Indians and creoles. Indians are 70% of the sample and have a mean IQ of 2.5 points more than the creoles. Using basic algebra, we find that the Indo-Mauritian IQ is 90. Note that Mauritius is far from a selective migration case - calculations are basing off Lynn's Race Differences in Intelligence.
Singapore : No IQ data here. But according to the 2005 Singstat income data -
Median income monthly : Chinese - 2500 Malay - 1800 Indian - 2480
Average income monthly : Chinese - 3610 Malay - 2200 Indian - 3660
Malaysia : IQ data of 88 just after the heyday of NEP which widely discriminated vs Chinese and Indians in Malaysia, hence testing those children who suffered under it. The chinese of course were not hit as hard. The Malays at the same time averaged 89. During this time the Indian economic situation put them in a very bad state. Now however the Indians perform midway between Malays and Chinese in income - see http://www.malaysianews.net/story/308459 . Plotting Chinese IQ as 105 and using a crude linear basis, the Indian IQ from that distribution is 96.
For a diaspora of plantation workers, 96 is quite impressive.
In sum, the true Indian IQ should be around 94 corrected for environment and very multi-modal. India's prospects in the 21st century in terms of IQ, while worse off than China's 105, are not that bad, primarily as Verbal IQ is more helpful in terms of GDP prediction than IQ - see La Griffe Du Lion's revised SFT - and East Asians lack verbal IQ comparatively.
Finally, allow me to mention two studies of Indian IQ that have not drawn much attention :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8240214 - note control group IQ
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15004297 , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10740303 - two studies, same cohort - note control group IQ
Indian IQ deserves a book length treatment, considering how diverse India is. What are your thoughts on Indian IQ ?
My thoughts are that it is a difficult and important question.
Posts
286 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 286 of 286"The Romans exported their men as colonizers and soldiers and imported subjugated peoples as slaves in their place. And then freed them"
So whats the point ,how does this disprove his position on Southern Europeans being smarter than Northern Europeans?
If you are using this to prove that the Romans made an error in judgement then yes they did.Which modern Northern European country didnt with regard to immigrants.Using this logic, would you say the British,Dutch,Germans and French have low IQs for importing a foreign,hostile,working class?
The reason they had to make slaves into citizens was the declining birth rates of the Roman populace.Very few of the latter were signing up for the army in the late empire.Many ex slaves especially Germans made good soldiers.
Wonder if America is doing the same thing with Mexicans(Hispanics are over represented as Medal of Honor recipients)
Re:Brahmins
The Northern and Western Brahmins do tend to underachieve their Southern and Western peers, but you have to explain why within the same state, Brahmins usually dominate academics - otherwise it's an apples to oranges comparison. One might say that China is far poorer than the US, therefore, China must be infinitely dumber than the US. But what about reality ?
More things than IQ influence the wealth of nations. Good governance, etc. all count. And guess what ? Bihar arguably held the worst leader of all Indian states.
Also, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find Northern / Western Brahmins with lower IQs. These regions were the entrance of Muslim invasions into India, which destroyed Hindu temples and ravaged the land. Central Asian tribal invasions as well. Perhaps the brighter ones were killed off. Destroyers of Hindu temples in the ranks of the Muslims were very common, like Kalapahar.
Re:Feeding itself as a sign of IQ
The historical rate of famine in India - except that under Colonial rule - wasn't abnormally high at all compared to other regions of the world.
Re:Indian observer
I am not trying to morally shame anyone. I'm well aware that my own group is far from a shrinking violet in that regard.
Re:Dwija populations
From 1891 census
Kshatriya : 10%, Vaish and Brahmin : 8% total
So, 18% - half the FC population.
Non-dwija FCs - like Patels - don't seem to do badly though.
Funny how the Brahminical India was not known as a cesspool of poverty and hunger BEFORE your saviors -the Mughals and British came along
This is the typical threadbare attempt by post colonial leftist to pin all the non-1st world's present problems on blue eyed devils.
This is patently stupid to anyone who knows the world history of things like slavery and foreign invasion and occupation. Grouping the British and Moghul rule of India together as somehow morally and historically equivalent is offensive to any educated person.
Even granting there is some truth to your claim, why didn't the Mongols and British Colonizers leave China, Hong Kong, and Singapore cesspools of poverty and hunger today?
Does anybody else find this hilarious?
Chinese chefs' children are beating the best and brightest from India in maths and sciences.
Most of the Chinese in America are the children of college graduates. Not chefs.
The children of the chefs do alright, if you look at the Chinatown test scores. However, the children of Indian motel and gas station owners do pretty decently academically too.
If you think less selected Indians do bad academically, you're not paying attention
Chinese do better in elite quant like math olympiads, but Indians own on the Spelling Bee.
The Intel Science Search has 40 finalists. Last year, 9 were Indian and 15 were Chinese. About 10 were Jewish, many of them from Eastern Europe or Russia. So three ethnic groups are about 85 percent of America's finalists. White gentiles and every other ethnicity (including Japanese and Koreans) need to be asking what's going on here.
There are a lot of uneducated Sikhs in Britain and Vancouver BC (Canada). They're not academic superstars or super wealthy, but most get by pretty decently. Their houses are huge.
In Tottenham, I don't see any pictures of Indian/Pakistani rioters, despite their large population. Most of the rioters are black and many are white. That's it.
If Indians are so smart, why do they eat with their hands?
"Chinese chefs' children are beating the best and brightest from India in maths and sciences."
Maybe Malcolm Gladwell will tell us that Chinese cooking involves a lot of number crunching.
There may be greater regional IQ differences in India. If China were to be divided into 99 areas, and if you choose two random areas, IQ might be more or less the same. If you divide India into 99 areas, it could be one area could be high IQ and another area could be very low IQ.
I know Indians from different places in India and haven't found much of a regional variance in IQ. I think the variance is mostly according to class, with the wealthier and middle class being smarter than the poor.
It's well recognized that Chinese from the southeastern coast are a lot smarter than people from the interior and north. Traditionally they dominated the imperial exams and controlled much of the national commerce.
Almost the entire Chinese diaspora is from the southeastern coast, as is the majority of Shanghai's population.
Among the Calcutta Chinese, there's a split between those from the coast and those from the interior.
Having a critical mass of smart people in one part of the country makes a difference. Unfortunately for China, the country also has one of the largest disparities in wealth and income in the world.
Uniformity in IQ or abilities is unlikely. I wouldn't bet against the northerners neccessarily, but I would take the Fujianese in Taiwan as representative of China's national average either.
Racially similar Hmong and Tibetans (south), Central Asians (west), and Mongols (north) are not known for their economic abilities.
"Keralas economy is a joke!Despite its high literacy,same goes for Bengal! Bihars growth rate right now is stratospheric."
This is a perfect example of the shamelessly brazen BS spread by you Brahmin con men. Besides ranking the highest in the Human Development Index, Kerala has a per capita income 3 times that of the Brahmin heartland, Uttar Pradesh, and more than 4 times that of Bihar, which has the second highest number of Brahmins. Yet you are singing the glories of Bihar! LOL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_by_GDP
"These stats dont prove anything except the regions that were frequented by missionaries were most favored by the British!And that legacy persists."
It is so stupid and pathetic how you Brahmins blame the British and Christian missionaries for all of India's numerous failures. Since the british have been gone for 3 generations now, what you are admitting, without realizing it because of innate retardedness, is that you must have really low IQs since you are so very helpless to undo anything that the British supposedly did to you!
The reality is that these Christians who you hate with such a passion built and continue to run the best most prestigious schools all over India which you hypocrites are all desperate to get into!
"North Indian Brahmins who are descended from Scythians and Huns who have no business being in the Vedic fold in the first place"
So you blackish Brahmins of the dravidian south are the only authentic "Vedic" Aryans while the great majority of Brahmins, who live in the northern Cow Belt, are all impostors?!
Maybe you should write a book about this theory of yours. LOL.
Check out the sorry performance of India's best and brightest in the. International Math Olympiad:
http://www.imo-official.org/results_country.aspx
China thoroughly dominates the competition: It ranked first 8 times and second 2 times in the past 10 years. The Islamic Republic of Iran does really well, far better than India: it came first one time since the ayatollahs came to power and ranks in the top ten most times. Muslim Turkey and Kazakhstan also do better than India which usually does not even rank in the top 20!
I saw pics of Indians rioting and looting in London.
Post links to pictures of Indians rioting. I can find a lot of whites.
Heck, even the Vancouver riots were overwhelmingly white. I saw just a few instances of Indians/Sikhs causing violence.
"Heck, even the Vancouver riots were overwhelmingly white."
So true, I didn't see any white rioters in Slumdog Millionaire either. Coincidence?
How many white people live in Bombay? The lower mainland of BC is around 10 percent East Indian/Sikh.
What is the number of an Indian secret agent?
007-11.
Re:Euro Trash
Are you actually implying that the British didn't suck wealth out of their colonies ?
Dadni policies, use of the revenue of Bengal as the company's trade capital, ignoring the food needs of the population causing so many famines during the colonial era...the looting of Oudh and Nagpur, etc. Before 1757 the E. India company imported bullion to buy materials, but after 1757 they just bought things with Bengali revenue as capital. During 1765-1770, goods worth 4 million pounds reached England. In 1840 Ellenborough admitted at the parliament that every year 3 million pounds' worth of goods reached England from India.
As for why Singapore, HK, and China have raced ahead - the simple fact is those economies also liberalized first. Look at how underdeveloped China is in comparison to HK/Taiwan, because it liberalized later. Same for North Korea which is yet to liberalize.
Also, China's Mongol rule ended a longer time ago. Not that Mongol rule is bad - only the later Mughal emperors were. The early and mid Mughal era was not an era of poverty at all.
Re:Brahmin income
I suggest that we give attention to academical performances of castes , which is where Brahmins dominate - basing off the IIT faculty data. The economic situation is an utter mess.
Re:IMO results
That IMO data has lots of quirks:
Thailand has ranked in the top 10 the last 4 years despite having an IQ of 91. Quite high IQ Uruguay has a terrible performance.
Besides, as I noted in the US IMO team, the IQ alone isn't enough of an explanation.Hell , canada's ranking is significantly worse than the US's, but that isn't likely due to IQ. Brazil is outperforming its high IQ peer Argentina without any trouble too. Low IQ Iran is miles and miles above Scandinavian nations and Israel. Romania, with a comparatively low IQ in Europe, does incredibly well - better than the highest IQ European nation, Italy by far.
Also, regarding the IMO, it occurs to me now that I didn't adjust for population - but even then, loads of discrepancies. The average IQ of singapore for instance isn't high enough to offset it's population to obtain that rank. Same with Romania.
There are other examples, like Pakistan having similar IQ and population as Iran but vastly different performance.
"Hell , canada's ranking is significantly worse than the US's, but that isn't likely due to IQ. Brazil is outperforming its high IQ peer Argentina without any trouble too."
This shows Brahmin's IQ, there, right there.
"Also Roman ladies especially took to bleaching their hair or wearing wigs as they were fond of blonde hair.This definitely indicates that it didnot occur naturally to them.Of course it does indicate their admiration for blondeness which is a different issue altogether."
Doesn't mean all the Roman ladies wore blonde wigs. Just that some of the dark haired ones did, like now. Probably then, as now, it was more common for children to be blonde.
Ovid has a lovely poem in which he praises the different tints of hair color. Since he spent considerable time running his hands through them, he was talking about the real thing. He describes the different hair colors of gold, red, browns, and black.
As far as coloring, the ancient Greeks were a predominantly Celtic people. I didn't even think was in dispute. Athena was the "grey eyed' goddess and countless mosaics during the Roman era--I was an astrological one in Israel--show people with a variety of hair colors including blonde, and a physical appearance that would apply to just about any European and quite a few "middle easterners." The ancient Romans have left plenty of images of themselves, as have the Italians from all eras. We have no need to speculate. Just use your eyes.
"Quite sure Italian IQ tops Europe. "
Sure? Please cite Rushton for that.Every breakdown I've seen puts Italian IQ in the upper 90s. The highest IQs were in Poland (yes, despite the jokes), Germany and Holland (white Hollanders). Poland and Germany were in the 107 range as I recall. Scandinavia was a little lower but still higher than Italy. Still-I think some of this is due to the percentage of the population being rural. This has an effect in ALL countries. In areas where the genetics are similar to their neighbors, but the IQ is lower, the rural and social conditions are probably a major reason.
"Re:Brahmin income"
I googled the income data to check its veracity, as well as the claim that most Brahmins are servants, etc. This obviously doesn't square with their vast overrepresentation in:
1. The Indian bureaucracy:
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?234781
("Going by figures quoted by the Backward Classes Commission, Brahmins account for 37.17 per cent of the bureaucracy. Other forward castes too constitute a substantial chunk.")
2. The Indian media:
http://www.hindu.com/2006/06/05/stories/2006060504981400.htm
"Brahmins alone, the survey found, hold 49 per cent of the top jobs in national journalism.")
3. Indian science and technology, elite Math and Science contests (both in India and in the US), etc.
a. Tenured faculty at Stanford Math: 3 Indians - two Southern Indian Brahmins, and 1 non-Brahmin upper caste.
b. Chicago Math: 4 Indians - 3 Southern Indian Brahmins, and 1 non-Brahmin upper caste.
c. Princeton Math: 3 Indians (1 is likely half-Indian) - 2 North Indian Brahmins, 1 probably half-Indian (Amit Singer).
d. Harvard Math: 1 Indian (Vaibhav Gadre) - most likely a North Indian Brahmin but possibly also a North Indian non-Brahmin upper caste.
e. MIT Math: 2 Indians - 1 Southern Indian Brahmin, and 1 likely a middle/lower caste North Indian.
Tamil Brahmins have "won 3 Science Nobels (Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, C.V. Raman), the only Abel Prize that a non-White has got(Srinivasa Varadhan), the only Nevanlinna prize that a non-White has got (Madhu Sudan), produced the greatest Mathematical autodidact in the last century (Srinivasa Ramanujan), produced one of the two Asians to win the Knuth prize, and produced the current world chess champion (Viswanathan Anand). Further, Tamil Brahmins are almost definitely going to bring South Asians their first Fields Medal (Akshay Venkatesh/Kannan Soundararajan), and have produced the youngest person (Vinodhini Vasudevan) to ever get a perfect SAT score at age 12 (also the only one to do so out of 600,000 gifted seventh- and eighth-graders the program has tracked through two decades). "
And now on to the Waterman awardees ("The Alan T. Waterman Award is the United States's highest honorary award for scientists no older than 35", URL here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_T._Waterman_Award) :
3 Indian winners - 2 North Indian Brahmins, and 1 North Indian upper-caste winner.
Multiple time Putnam fellows: "In the history of Competition, only seven students have been Putnam Fellows four times, with nineteen others winning the award three times. "
3 Indians: 1 North Indian Brahmin, 1 South Indian Brahmin, and 1 North Indian non-Brahmin upper caste individual.
---------------------
The article quoted by our Brahmin-bashing friend (I'm sorry my ancestors treated your ancestors like crap, but get over it, dude) is from a solitary article in Rediff which quotes no data, provides no indication of WHEN the data is from, and is written by a Hindu nationalist. Glad to know that Hindu nationalists are now the gold standard for Brahmin-haters ;) Cite some real data written by a mainstream, estimable publication, which cites its sources, and I'll be more than happy to reconsider my opinion.
P.S.
1. 39% of Brahmins have undergrad degrees and only 13% are poor. See this:
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?234783
2. Yes, they do clean toilets. There exist a non-trivial number of poor Brahmins doing such work.
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?234780
"This shows Brahmin's IQ, there, right there. "
If you mean that I didn't adjust for population, then yes you do have a point - a point I have already noticed and addressed. Otherwise, there is nothing I've said that's wrong.
Re:Italian IQ
L&V 2002, 2006 - 102. Netherlands and Germany also 102. Poland 99 - although of course I admit that the studies are widely divergent on Poland. Scandinavia doesn't beat Italy at all.
And no, I couldn't cite Rushton - but if you think Lynn is a bad source , I can't help you.
Re:Hair color
I don't know what the fuss is all about - don't the ancient Romans and Greeks mention loads of non-black-haired people in their literature, etc. ?
Seriously, there's a better topic of discussion than hair color of all things.
Well it's been a fun comment war here but I'll just take my bow here - all this posting is really impacting my current job.
Look forward to Indian PISA results come this december for a representative measure of Indian IQ.
"which quotes no data"
Should have been, "which quotes no study."
Pensive brahmin said...
Look forward to Indian PISA results come this december for a representative measure of Indian IQ.
Given the (a) insecurity exhibited by nationalistic Indians (the same mentality that seems to run much of India) in this post as well as (b) the famously deep institutional and cultural corruption and dysfunction in India, I very much doubt that whatever PISA score comes out in December will be an honest and accurate refection of a "national Indian IQ".
India has clearly produced many bright minds, but why do so many Indian elites desperately feel the need to propagandize an elevated national IQ largely which is determined by different and distinct sub-ethnic groups that the elites disdain?
"Another typically dumb argument. There are 55 million Brahmins in India, how many are employed in the media and the bureaucracy?"
No - what's stupid is to look at complete domination in the tails of the intelligence distribution and yet make senseless remarks about how the Brahmin IQ is in the 60s. Get back to me when non-Brahmins have even *remotely* the kind of representation in elite contests that Brahmins have.
"All of these Nobel Laureates look like your typical non-dwija Dravidians."
As do I. Does my swarthy complexion make non-Brahmins any less vitriolic towards me? Also, who made any remark about how they look? Some Brahmins like Shamit Kachru look almost white, some look pretty dark. I have people across the entire spectrum *within my family*! This is an utterly stupid point that you're making.
"The article is dated, provides sources, quotes data"
Stop being an idiot. I looked at the "sources" cited.
Brahmins of India, which Gautier quotes, is a book not on Indian Brahmins, but on "Brahmans in Machilipatnam, India" published a good 2 decades prior to the article by Gautier. The other "sources" return no hits in google other than Gautier's own article.
See here:
http://www.amazon.com/Brahmans-India-J-Radha-Krishna/dp/8185076243
"You know full well that Francois Gautier is very pro-Brahmin and his famous article is lamenting the sorry state of Brahmins, not rejoicing in it."
LOL! I don't care either way. The data is suspect, and the data from Outlook is far more reliable, recent, and in sync with reality as observed. Keep frothing in the mouth though - it's a good substitute for a good argument, and works for the affirmative action/reservation kids in India very well indeed.
"
Look forward to Indian PISA results come this december for a representative measure of Indian IQ."
No...
Indian corruption can inflate the scores. Plus we already have measures of Indian IQ in India, all this is - is changes in 2010. Deflating factors as well exist : Indian education is pisspoor especially on the type of thinking questions PISA asks , rote learning is all too common.
Just let India become a first world nation sometime around 2050 and then take a national IQ sample.
The only thing the PISA data will show is whether there have been improvements due to improving environment since the TIMSS study which found really low performance on par with Arab countries. Given that Indian performance was on Arab levels despite vastly worse infrastructure, education etc. I expect those two states - HP and TN - which are more developed and educated than Orissa/Rajasthan in the TIMSS study - to do better and also because education is improving very fast and that should show.
"This is an utterly stupid point that you're making."
Exposing the stupidity and lies of your ilk is "utterly stupid"? LOL.
What you Tamil Brahmins in particular have been doing all over the Internet is boasting endlessly about your supposed genius and acting oh so contemptuous towards low caste Hindus, Muslims, Christians, socialist egalitarians and even north Indian brahmins. It is all so ugly and obscene, not to mention stupid and deceitful.
Firstly you were considered low caste sudras by the orthodox Vedic Brahmins, the Nambudris.
Secondly, the geniuses whose names you all keep chanting like brainwashed drones had south Indian Dravidian phenotypes.
Thirdly, the success of your Tamil " Brahmin" heroes was a result of British policies which came at the expense of the previous ruling class of the region. Before British rule the Tamil Brahmins weren't anything special at all.
Fourthly, Indians in general tend to look down on Tamils, including Tamil Brahmins. All the ridiculous boasting that you all indulge in is clearly a vain attempt to earn the respect no one gives you. A few high achievers from your community isn't making others like you as a group.
Re: Pensive brahmin said...
"Also the negligible role of environment on IQ from those studies isn't really very congruent with the Flynn effect's magnitude. That, or Flynn's model of cognitive stimulation is correct."
The conventional interpretation is that high heritability limits the impact of environmental factors. A heritability of 1, for example, would mean that environmental factors of the type prevalent when the heritability estimate was made have no impact on the phenotype. (Obviously, environmental factors novel to the population, and therefore for which there is no variation, could - e.g. the absence of arsenic in the regional drinking water.)
This conventional interpretation was challenged by Flynn as you note. Flynn argued that heritability estimates were high, yet large changes occurred, therefore high heritability did not limit the impact of environmental factors. Flynn's argument assumed that the Flynn effect described a rise in the same latent factor that is shown to be highly heritable. Apples and apples. Heritability estimates concern 'g'; the secular rise concerns raw scores on certain measures of g. It's not clear, however, if the secular rise represents an actual rise in g, and therefore calls into question the traditional interpretation of heritability estimates. There are reasons to think that the secular rise in not, generally, a rise in g. For one, a recent meta-analysis of 17 studies has shown that the secular rise negatively correlates with g. For another, several studies have shown that strict measurement invariance does not hold across cohorts, which implies that between cohort differences are of a different nature than within cohort differences -- and therefore not strictly comparable. Finally, there is little evidence of a secular rise in endophenotypes (cortical volume etc), which have been shown to mediate the IQ-g relationship. Worse still, Flynn's model was just falsified by the recent GWAS study on IQ. (Flynn model was based on a rGE model of heritability. The recent GWAS established that the differences were substantially additive).
I wouldn't put much stock in Flynnesque explanations.
One of the interesting data points is Dr.Ambedkar
He was an untouchable leader about 100 years ago. He was born into an illiterate family.
He got funding from a Hindu Maharaja
He got admission into Columbia law school and graduated.
This was at a time when non-whites were actively discriminated against during admission and grades.
Assuming that he was 2-3 SD above the Dalit average, that would still put the Dalit average about 85 at least, and thats the lower bound of Indian IQ
I think that a Tribal IQ of ~80, a Dalit IQ of about 85-91, a Backward Class (OBC) IQ of ~95-100, and an Upper-Caste IQ of 110+ is probably what India's long term potential is, corrected for severe malnutrition, disease, and poor education (similar to Recman and NSAM's post earlier).
Don't forget that all 5 of India's nobel laureates in science/economics were upper-caste Hindus (4 Brahmins, 1 kshatriya).
It seems that even lower-caste Indians do quite well for themselves. For example, one of the things that caused the Sri Lankan tensions was that Tamils heavily outperformed the native Sinhalese in school, and the Sinhalese got mad (acc. to Thomas Sowell). The Tamils who were brought to work in Sri Lanka were NOT, by any means, upper caste Tamils, but were mostly lower caste, with a large Dalit population.
Even in Canada, the poor Sri Lankan Tamil immigrants do pretty well for themselves after 1 generations' (or less) time to adapt to Canadian society. Ditto with Indians in the UK (even though there are very few Dalits among British Indians, they're heavily OBC). It seems that even the Backward Classes have IQ's not too far away from Whites...that is, when they have adequate nutrition and education.
My final comment on this hellishly lengthy debate: India's long-term economic performance, OVERALL, will depend on the degree to which Inida's leaders launch proper economic reforms. The wealth and nutrition will naturally grow in India, if this happens, leading to higher IQ's in a generation or two.
Our in house hero Recman said:
"Assuming that he was 2-3 SD above the Dalit average, that would still put the Dalit average about 85 at least, and thats the lower bound of Indian IQ".
None of those three sentences makes any sense, at all. Just more idiotic nationalist BS from hindu propagandists.
"I think that a Tribal IQ of ~80, a Dalit IQ of about 85-91, a Backward Class (OBC) IQ of ~95-100, and an Upper-Caste IQ of 110+ is probably what India's long term potential is."
Where did you pull out those numbers, "American" thinker?
"Assuming that he was 2-3 SD above the Dalit average, that would still put the Dalit average about 85 at least, and thats the lower bound of Indian IQ"
Verrry funny to see you making all these self-aggrandizing assumptions. I recommend that you deal with facts instead.
@Madison
"Hindus in general are very servile people.....
. If you are white , Indians will pretty much treat you like colonialism never ended. "
Really ,from what I notice,Indians treat white tourists as ATM machines!They openly fleece and con them, thats the only reason they kowtow to whites is to devour whatever foreign currency the latter may have on their person.Im not defending this behavior but it doesnt translate into servility.
"It is also a very strange culture. It treats life as if it is dirt, which is very odd function of Hinduism."
Its not so much to do with Hinduism but a large population and high levels of poverty.
Which is why there is such a cavalier attitude towards mass abortions of female fetuses."
"I came across an Indian doctor who routinely aborted girl fetuses of Hindu and Sikh women....And she was educated with a training degree from the UK."
Its shameful but how are abortions detached attitude of doctors unique to India?Also are there no Muslim women who have abortions?
"This cavalier attitude towards death is seen in the way India lives in complete filth. No one even bothers to clean these heritage sites .....So you see the dead bodies that rot the Ganges, and the smell of death is everywhere, with people swimming in the water and drinking the water.It is crazy."
That is normal in every third world country.As for the Ganges ,well its a religious thing-people believe its blessed despite its pollution.
"The love affair our press has with India started in 2006 really with India's normalization of relations with Israel."
At least get your facts straight if you are going to carry out a hit piece on India.India's normalization with Israel occured in 1992.!
It is now our ally, and because it is servile, we can use it as a strategic post between those nutter countries."
Ah, we see this posters agenda of being anti Israel AND anti India.FYI ,Hindus have always supported Israel ,Indians have acknowledged that as mentioned only in 1991.Israel supported India in ways the U.S never did,particularly its stance on Kashmir, nuclear tests, inter intelligence cooperation and weapons purchases.
"I have to say that I have been to Pakistan, and compared to India, it was much more civilized. It was at least clean. Not saying that there is higher IQ,.....It's still backward, but even compared to those savage's country, large parts of India are still in the neanderthal age."
Pakistan is on the whole colder and is flush with American cash , this explains its relative cleanliness and urban development of some cities.
What parts of India ban women from going to college and blowing up TV stations or mandate that men grow beards and attend mosques which is what goes on in the badlands of Pakistan.
Coming back to white people and how they are treated...take a look at Muslim countries and how they treat mostly UK,US,Australian and EU expats-They give them jobs and salaries that they deny their own people!LOL!If even one Indian company which does that ,unless they are multi national companies, there would be riots!
"Anyone who buys into India's success is not seeing our military strategy propaganda at play. India will be very easy to control so it is a good idea to hype it."
"Doesn't mean all the Roman ladies wore blonde wigs. Just that some of the dark haired ones did, like now.
Yes , but my point was most of Roman women were brunettes!Blondes then as now were probably found in Northern Italy as the red haired Macedonians were most likely semi Hellenized Celts or Thracians.
" Probably then, as now, it was more common for children to be blonde."
How is this known?
"Ovid has a lovely poem in which he praises the different tints of hair color. Since he spent considerable time running his hands through them, he was talking about the real thing. He describes the different hair colors of gold, red, browns, and black."
Sure but Ovid existed in the time of early empire where the slave trade with merchandise from Northern Europe was brisk.Heck even in the late empire,blonde hair and blue eyes were considered something unusual
As late as the 6th century ,Pope Gregory was puzzled by the appearance of some blond Angle slaves in a Roman market which prompted him to make a bad pun!
“Bene, nam et angelicam habent faciem, et tales angelorum in caelis decet esse coheredes” ("It is well, for they have an angelic face, and such people ought to be co-heirs of the angels in heaven")
As far as coloring, the ancient Greeks were a predominantly Celtic people."
???!! This is an amazing claim.Certainly Greeks never claimed so.If the Celts did believe that ,well that is only natural that they would want to be associated with a more civilized people!
I didn't even think was in dispute."
You dont believe that your claim of the Greeks being Celts is in dispute??!!
Athena was the "grey eyed' goddess and countless mosaics during the Roman era--
Athena was "owl eyed" ,the grey color may have more to do with the owls!
I was an astrological one in Israel--show people with a variety of hair colors including blonde, and a physical appearance that would apply to just about any European and quite a few "middle easterners."
When was this dated ,early Republic or late empire.Im guessing the latter.
The ancient Romans have left plenty of images of themselves, as have the Italians from all eras. We have no need to speculate. Just use your eyes.
Once again ,all that depends on when these images date from-early Republic i.e pre influx of slaves from Northern Europe which altered the demographics or late empire where the the original Roman stock was near extinction and freed slaves were compelled to join the army?
Realistically, India's average IQ is probably somewhere in the mid 90s, but depressed by poor environment and nutrition. 92-94 is a realistic estimate for the longterm, with a high level of variance.
Caste might be relevant, but my sense is that Indians of most castes are pretty comparable in general.
With good leadership, India can probably get itself to middle income status. Maybe around where Turkey is today. For the average Indian, that'd be a paradise.
"Realistically, India's average IQ is probably somewhere in the mid 90s, but depressed by poor environment and nutrition. 92-94 is a realistic estimate for the longterm, with a high level of variance. "
Source? I am tired of these BS on the internet. You cannot drag numbers from your behind and talk like they are facts.
I'd throw it in the same kind of average realm as the Middle East with a greater heritability, through long term (and present) assortive mating.
The greater heritability would mean that they have a greater ability to train their high IQ minds, which occur as the offspring of high IQ parents, but I would guess that there are no more truly brilliant minds than in the Middle East. That would also mean there's probably less untapped human potential in India than the Mid East, per capita, and less incentive to build structures to tap it.
No real need for subpopulation IQs IMO. There's little real difference.
And when I say, "Assume higher heritability, there's no difference" that's in the context that summing together the populations of two Gaussian distributions does not give a distribution which is bimodal, or even a Gaussian with even a particularly elevated standard deviation compared to the two summed.
By the way guys, to try and take a wider historical picture, taken as an overall historical statement.
India's below China, above Europe (taken as including Greece to Italy) and on a par with the Middle East between the fall of Rome and the European renaissance. That's about a millenium, the period we have presently of Euro dominance is about a half millenium.
Prior to the fall of Rome, there's no real evidence of any particular Indian importance before that.
Indus Valley did some interesting things and the proto-civilizations that preceeded it were about as advanced as similar proto-civs in South Eastern Europe, but that's about it.
Also, I'll note historical Indian accomplishments in production seem lower, cross historically, when we exclude textile industries, which are strongly climatically limited through raw materials.
American Thinker "It seems that even lower-caste Indians do quite well for themselves. For example, one of the things that caused the Sri Lankan tensions was that Tamils heavily outperformed the native Sinhalese in school, and the Sinhalese got mad (acc. to Thomas Sowell). The Tamils who were brought to work in Sri Lanka were NOT, by any means, upper caste Tamils, but were mostly lower caste, with a large Dalit population."
The Tamils that outdid the Sinhalese were from the North... the results of long term migration from South India. The recent Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka live in the central regions of the country and don't do spectacularly well.
If this comment board is a reflection of average IQ of Indian expats /professionals in the 1st world, then it’’ further strengthen one’s belief that India’s average IQ is about low 80s.
Hence in light of this, 2 easy brain-teasers just off the top of my head for the board ( disclaimer: an IQ > 85 is required to answer them correctly) :
1. Why average IQ ( and its crude and often abused “derivatives” such as average income, SAT scores, etc) of Indian immigrants in the most advanced Western economies such as the US and the UK (with relative lower percentages) is the fair reflection of India’s average IQ, while average IQ of Indian immigrants in the third world or Fouth economies (with both high percentages and absolute mass) such as Malaysia, Fiji, Trinidad or even South Africa, etc. not ?
2. Which degree of absurdity (scale from 1 to 10) is needed to acclaim that India’s average IQ is about the same as those of the US , the UK, Belgium, France, etc., given a negligible few points difference between its new found “average IQ of 94” and high 90s of many Western nations due to recent mass immigration ?
By the way, Steve, I’m sure that with this acclaim you would become a phenomenon amongst Western pro-mass immigration neolibs, and India’s governing elites as well who are eager to dump, oh, sorry, I mean share generously, its precious surplus of “demographic dividend” with the 1st world, gratis. I think you should run for Congressman.
As for the popular question, quite awe inspiring indeed, across this board that “why Indian mass immigration to the West should be actively and systemically promoted given the recent obvious failure of the Western civilisation since these two people have actually very similar IQ anyway as Steve just told us?” , my educated guess would be “errr…perhaps no single 1st world country wants to become another India, yet?”
Nonetheless I thank you!
@To those who accuse Indians(or Brahmins) here of having an agenda , inferiority complexes or low IQ due to their specious claims:
I agree that Indians exagerrate their achievements(previous and current) as they may suffer from some inferiority complex.But that is only natural if you were a victim of 200 years of European colonialism preceed by nearly a 1000 years of intermittent Islamic rule.You will tend to overcompensate for your numerous flaws!
Also, making unprovable absurd claims is not the result of low IQ but of ideology.Look the multitude of Ivy League graduates who support thoroughly failed and discredited agendas(mostly liberal).Would you say the Harvard,Yale and MIT technocrats who favor Keynesian economics,redistribution of wealth and doing away with flush toilets are cretins?No, subscribing to extreme ideologies and promoting unprovable vested interests have little to do with IQ.
What I find even more interesting is that these very same people who (correctly) deride some Indians for making fantastic claims have absolutely nothing to say about the bizarre theories about Greeks and Romans being blonde and Northern European stock promoted by their brethren!
I mean white HBD guys practically twist themselves into pretzels trying desperately to claim the ancient classical world as a Northern European heritage!
One of the more nonsensical arguments here:
Northern Europe was too cold ergo civilization could only begin in the South to which most high IQ Northerners migrated and created civilization.
-Ok....how come Northern Europe was unable to create civilization then but it was able to later on?And no the climate of Northern Europe during the classical times to today is NOT comparable to Northern Canada!
Romans build temples ,bath houses, gymnasiums and other structures and institutions in Gaul and Britain!Why couldnt the Gallic and British people do the same (they managed to create that level of civilization only 1500 years later!)If invaders from warmer climes ,comparatively darker and brunette Southern lot could do it in the Northerners own backyard and under the same weather conditions HBDs kept complaining about,why couldnt the acclimatized higher IQ,Northern,fairer types do it better and show them up.
Remember one way of impressing ancient Rome(and undermining their morale) was showing off your civilization..which is why it could compete militarily against an even darker Persia(please no Persians=real blonde Aryan theories,much of Persias troops consisted of dark skineed Elamites,Medians and Indian mercenaries)
Also white HBDs have absolutely no comment on Charlottes fantastic claim that Greeks were Celtic!
Speaking of complexes, isnt more of a complex that Northern Europeans despite their obviously impressive ,nay vital contributions to modern civilization in pretty much all fields feel the need to pilfer another peoples lineage?I mean if you are so proud of your achievenments and developed the novel concept that the individual matters more than virtue of his membership to tribe,clan or sect,why go out of your way to claim an ancient past you had little to do with.What is this gaping hole in your sense of identity?
When white HBDers are willing with to deal with the illogical,self serving ideologues in their own backyard ,then they would have more credibility when they criticize the admittedly ultra sensitive,often fraudulent and egotistical Indian chest thumpers!
The Tamils that outdid the Sinhalese were from the North... the results of long term migration from South India."
Actually they were the remnants of invaders from South India!Which explains SL Tamil militarim.
" The recent Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka live in the central regions of the country and don't do spectacularly well."
Perhaps but do they perform worse than the Sinhalas?BTW for those who are not aware Sinhalas claim Northern (Aryan) heritage.
However this claim has its detractors.While certainly the language is of Prakrit origin ,it has so much Tamil vocabulary that it could be mistaken as another South Indian language.
Also while Sinhalas are somewhat taller and fairer than Tamils,it means little as one can say the same for other "Dravidian" peoples such as Kannadigas,Telugus and Malayalis ,heck even Indian Tamils(all of whom on average are even taller and fairer than Sinhalas)
At the same time, Sinhalas and Tamils share many castes ,sub ethnicities and festivals.
While there was a notion of a seperate ethnicity,it was not set in stone .Tamils and Sinhalas intermarried freely.There were Tamil kings of Sinhalese origins and vice versa.The most famous example being the "Sinhala"Kandy kings
in the central mountain country who were Naicker origin from Tamil Nadu.
Chalk up the seperation and illwill to the British divide and rule policy with their penchant for racial theories(Aryan,Dravidian)...
The civil war in Sri Lanka was another wonderful legacy of "Pax Britannica" ala Israel /Palestine,Greece/Cyprus,India/Pakistan,Sunni/Shia/Kurd Iraq and their own backyard ..Northern Ireland...!
Not as bad as the French (Lebanon/Syria,Hutu/Tutsis,Vietnam/Laos) or Belgium(Congo,enough said) but nothing justify Niall Fergusson type apologetics either.
"So you blackish Brahmins of the dravidian south are the only authentic "Vedic" Aryans while the great majority of Brahmins, who live in the northern Cow Belt, are all impostors?! "
Slightly OT: I dont know why some comments appear in my email but I cant find them on the website until much later.I just saw this on the comments board now so I will respond.
Actually a good number of "blackish" Brahmins are indeed the real Brahmins.Remember the story of about how Nanda king mocked Chanakya for his dark skin(Chanakya was from South India) as he couldnt believe a Brahmin could be dark skinned.Just FYI the Nanda king was a villain of the tale and this account was highlighted to accentuate his bigotry.
As for the cow belt Brahmins,most of the authentic Vedic Brahmins from the cow belt fled to the South atleast during the Muslim invasions if not earlier.Many SI Brahmins trace their descent from Ayodhya and Patna.
As the current lot of Northern Brahmins such as Konkanasthas,Mishras,Tyagis and Bhumihars-when they themselves claim and their legends denote recent Hun,Scythians and Gujjar lineage -what do you want me to do?
Take it up with them!
That is not to say all Southern Brahmins are the real thing.Nambuthiris are impostors from the Sindh region.
I think the only real Vedic Brahmins in the North are the Saraswats and some ,not all, Bengali Brahmins.
Also traditionally Gujarat and Maharashtra were considered part of South India(pancha Dravidas) so I did not discuss their Brahmins (with the exception of Konkanastha)
Steve’s ( or someone hacked Steve’s id and wrote this ) attempt to justify India’s 94 IQ is feeble to say the least. Is that youwho wrote it, Steve? I am shocked in disbelief, since the article is packed of inconsistencies and logic fallacies, here I randomly list some of twisted “evidences” and “logic” here:
“since Indian ancient civilisation was highly advanced,…” Steven, do not confuse ancient “Indo valley civilisation” with the current “India”, since the elites of ancient Indo valley civilisation may very well be the a TOTALLY different people!
In this vein, Steve, will you agree also that the average IQ of modern Egyptians, Mexicans and Iraqis are least at 94 level, simplely because ancient Egyptian, Mayan, Aztec and Mesopotamian civilisations were all “very advanced”, if not much more advanced than ancient Indo valley one ??? If not, why not? This is exactly the same logic!
Steven then goes on to cite “scientists and experts in the field”, or shall we say random nobody posters on this blog, such as recman01 and his “model” pulled of the thin air from his bedroom, to refute established and peer-reviewed scholars such as Lynn and Vanhanen. Are you serious, Steve?
Then we have that famous “Indian invention” of “zero”, and more often than not “zero” alone – the only invention that worths mentioning. C’mon, Steve, do you really think other advanced ancient civilizations (e.g. Mayan, Egyptian) were too dumb to invent “zero” as a simple holding number independently when they did their Calendars? Even chimps could do that, to be a bit exaggerated. On a more serious note, even it were the case, any individual brilliance could NOT be the representative of the population at large. This is Logic 101, for goodness.
Sadly, Steven then betrayed HBD, at least it seemed so in this case, to justify nurture over nature with that lengthy and feeble attempt on Indian’s “nutrition level” as if given better nutrition, Indian IQ would have a quantum leap within a matter of years. I am speechless. Steve, are you aware that this is the single best excuse that Africans and American Blacks are using. But which side are you on?
The best attempt by Steve is the analogy along the line that “since NE Indians are similar to Thais who has average IQ of 91, and due to NE Indians are less developed than India as whole, therefore India must have IQ> 91...” Oh my…! If things were that simple and straight forward without other complications, that would be a perfect world, wouldn’t it? In the same vein of your logic, Steve, do you agree that Chinese have average IQ much lower than Mexicans, simple because the latter is currently much higher in GDP per cap pecking order, and North Koreans must have average IQ far below Moroccans due to their much less developed economy… similar examples are endless!
Bottom line - `Indian tech gurus` is a fairly modern `phenomenon` mainly out of stories (individual brilliances) and propagandas from USA, since Indians as a whole have even never been impressive EVEN in the eyes of their immediate South East Asian neighbours throughout almost ENTIRE history -– this gives a much better indication about general Indian IQ than any Tom Dick and Harry.
In 1946 , the British – the world’s economic superpower at a time - left India with the very best structure of democracy, a large section of Western-educated elite class, a world leading Common Wealth Law, supported by modern independent institutions and media, the best and the most extensive railway network in entire Asia, with local economy/industries relatively intact by the destruction of WWII in comparison to complete rubbles of China mainland , Japan, Korea and a large part of South East Asia.
Today, half a century later, India is amongst the poorest, the most backward country in all major economies in entire South East Asia, let alone East Asia. Certainly it is the single largest recipient of financial and food aids in the region. India’s HDI ( Human Development Index) is amongst the lowest in entire Asia, and the world.
How you can justify these facts, Steve?
From whichever direction (being Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, even Philippines, let lone China, Japan, Korea, etc) one travels in Asia towards India, it would give you a total knockout once you land in the country.
Tiny pockets of relatively prosperous islands aside, the sheer squalor, dirt, garages (let’s leave mass absolute poverty aside) in Indian cities in general, yes I mean cities and let’s forget about countryside, are comparable to sub-Sahara Africa in all senses and colours to be honest.
High IQ people don’t behave in this way under whatever circumstance, ever!
Even Communist North Korea, extremely poor as they are, is day and night compared to India in cleanness, social order, discipline, etc. -- very basic traits of high IQ people, according to numerous photos taken by individual neutral backpacker travellers across years.
Even you can’t such a degree of chaos and dirts in Cambodia as you do in India, I am afraid.
No excuses for Indians, sorry!
If this South Asian country has average IQ of 94 ( even ahead of Israel – 91, well ahead of most Latin American countries), as this rubbish article of Steve tries to justify, then I am afraid that South East Asia in general must have IQ of 150 plus!
Steve, get out of your ivory tower, go travel more and dream less on this one, please.
We judge a population’s general intelligence, not by what they boast ( granted, some have more gifted big mouth than others), but by what they do and have done, such as shown by what kinds of cities they have built overtime.
This is because cities have been the places where an overwhelming majority of right-side of the bell curve work, leisure, and/or live (except post modern Western trends that the wealthy Europeans/Americans are living in suburbs).
Overall prosperity, architecture, cleanness and orderness of a typical/representative major city is a fair and objective reflection what the best a certain population could achieve for their own good, hence a very fair indicator of the general IQ of the underlying population under normal circumstances.
e.g.
Cities with IQ 100 +: Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai, Seoul, Singapore ( lands of post-odern skycrapers), Frankfurt, Geneva/Stockholm/Amsterdam (no modern skyscrapers, but traditional beauties)…Cleanness and orderness are stunning. See the levels?
IQ about 100 : NYC, Paris, London(prior to 1960s), Sydney, SF, Rome, Barcelona, Milan … oke?
IQ mid 90s: Moscow, Buenos Aires, Kiev, Athens, Tel Aviv, Lisbon, Madrid, Dublin… note the difference? Is any Indian city remotely close to this category??
Typical low 90s: Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Lima (a large part)...
IQ mid-high 80s: San Paolo ( 2016 Olympics Host City), Dubai & Kwait (with oil $$$ makeup), Teheran, Lebanon (pre-war), Istanbul … notice the slight drop?
To be perfectly frank, for anyone who has a common sense, San Paolo and Istanbul are a heads and a shoulder ahead of Delhi in almost any indicator one can come out with, while Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok look and taste like a paradise compared to Mumbai if you have ever been there...
IQ 94? Or 93.8? LOL, yeah right.
In light of this, low 80s for India as a while is allready a bit generous.
Let me just first clarify that I am Taiwanese American, and I have many Indian friends, and have worked with Vikram Pandit, the CEO of Citigroup, and have travelled extensively to India for business and leisure.
The Indians who are posting here are probably some insecure Indians who are in India or Singapore as most Indian American know they come from the right end of the bell curve and know that they are very smart and successful but acknowledge that their homeland is filled with unintelligent masses.
Why don't Japanese excel in a lot of the competitions or ranking? It's because the smart ones don't leave their country unlike poor Indians and Chinese.
I actually believe at the 140 iq level there are more Indians than Chinese but the average Indian in India is definitely worse than African Americans. But at the extreme high end of the curve it's not Indians or Chinese. It's the Jews. At the top hedge funds it's majority Jewish with Indian and Chinese doing the grunt quant work.
To somehow suggest that India has more >140ers than China, given the huge differential in their IQ ( a fact) , even with POSSIBLE ( we do not know for sure, just a wild assumption) higher variances than China, requires a quantum leap in both maths and conventional logic.
And the smartest Chinese are mostly still in China (generally 9 out of 10) , not in the US, for a variety of reasons. Not the same can be said on India.
Jewish IQ average is lower than that of both NE Asians and Europeans.
Only its sub sub tribe called Ashkenazi has higher IQ on paper.
Yet Ashkenazi Jew is NOT a race, not even Jews in general a race, in the same sense of a major race such as Black Africans, White Europeans and Oriental East Asians. Thus it’s quintessentially Apple Orange to compare them.
If they were directly comparable, we’d better , and must, look at separate IQs of all sub tribes within, e.g. Finland, Germany, Russia, Japan… and certainly a continental sized country such as China where you can easily find 3 or 4 dozens major tribes within Han Chinese, each of them having a population several times larger than worldwide Jews put together which is less than that of Shanghai City for goodness.
Then we can compare.
Yet we still miss one crucial factor that artificially soups up Ashkenazi Jews’ disproportionally larger presence in Nobel Science, Media, Wall Street, selected law firms, etc.
Ashkenazi is the ONLY tribe in the world which disproportionally has most of its population situated in and around the most prosperous ( economically and academically) center of the world at a time, being Berlin of Germany (world’s superpower pre- WWII) , or NYC of USA (world’s superpower post-WWII).
Most of the entire working age Ashkenzi Jews population ( the entire right –side of the bell curve) is concentrated in a handful of Trojan Horse cities in the world : NYC, LA, Berlin and Moscow ( in Soviet era) where things happen.
This very unique advantage they hold over others significantly enables them monopoply in areas that the said Trojan Horse city is good at, mainly finance, law and academia , taking advantage of the most prosperous geographic location that world has to offer and water tight business/academic networks within.
We know with a large certainty that the next Ashkenazi Nobel Science prize winner is likely coming from a middle or upper middle class family around NY or Massachusetts where almost entire far end of Ashkenazi bell curve is located (Tel Aviv & LA aside), taking FULL advantage of the world leading academic, economic, informational and scholarly network at the doorstep; whereas we can not say the same for the next Russian Nobel Science prize winner, or the next Chinese one whose parents may very well be working at oil drills in permafrozen Manchuria or as tour guides for traditional rice fields in rural Western Sichuan as we speak.
There, lies the key difference.
If aforementioned general IQs were only Apple Orange incomparable, now we have highly concentrated Apple Juice with an industrial touch Vs. natural Orange you pick up at a farm.
As for “at the top hedge funds it's majority Jewish with Indian and Chinese doing the grunt quant work”, it’s complete nonsense, as I myself was a trader for a tier one HF at this side of the Atlantic. And in HF, as in other industries, the ones who sit in the sideline crunching the numbers are usually the smartest, not the fund manager,nor CEO of a firm/Head of Dept etc – most of these people in most industries don’t belong to the top quartile smartest who almost always work at the front line, but mainly serves for fund raise and PR purposes with personal charisma & inter-personal skills weighting in much more.
We, however, on the trading floor or in the dealingroom, used to have a joke, saying “ to limit our loss, we've decided to promote him (read- the worst/dumbest trader) to upstairs as management” hilarious but in reality that’s how they usually end up in most cases.
Steve,
You argue that it sounds “all right” that India has average IQ of 94.
Assume you are perfectly right. 94 then.
Now please explain why Indian’s average cranial capacity doesn’t fit the 94 level.
And by the way, Steve, you have to explain as well, why average Indian reproduction characteristics such as hormone level, sexually transmitted disease level don’t fit IQ 94 ?
Since you are at it, Steve, please also tell us why average Indian’s personality (aggressiveness, cautiousnness, impulsivity, self-concept…) and maturation statue ( gestation time, skeletal development, motor development , dental development…) don’t fit IQ 94 level?
That’s right, Steve, you must explain all these biological and social differences to justify why Indian is the only sub-race that defy the Mother Law of Nature, in order to argue that they have IQ of 94 level.
And as a footnote, you may also want to elaborate on do you think of current IQ levels of Sri Lanka , Pakistan, Nepal, Egypt, Turkey, et al should be. 94 as well? o more, in which case what should be the IQ level of Orientals then? Out of charts?
The beauty of theories of Lynn & Verhalen, P Rushton, C Murray and a whole host of other prominent scientists does not lie in their pin-pointedly precise calculations ( for instance, Indian’s IQ must be 81, not 83.5), but rather in their inherit logic of the whole system in which every pieces intuitively and logically fit right into the whole picture. Their estimates could be wrong, yet not much
One can casually raises all kinds of “models” and excuses to argue that Indians have average IQ of 94, yet one can NOT explain the rest of “skewed” coordinates of the system due to this change.
It’s just like one can argue that Jupiter doesn’t fall into its supposed orbit in the Solar system but should be closer to Sun than Mars is according to his “model’’ , fine, then he must also explain how the rest of the Solar System suppose to work in such a “model”.
He can’t.
And you can’t either, Steve.
--- because there are BIG black holes everywhere in your “model”!
Now the final question seems to be that “there is no such a thing as [Average Indian] because India is very diverse, then how do we measure the average?”
Answer: there IS an Average Indian in fact !
This Indian is almost the exact picture of what you see when you close your eyes, just like other Average types of Northern Europeans, Southern Europeans, Northeast Asian/Orientals, Sub-Sahara Africans, American Indians, Australia aboriginals … this’s because one will be almost NEVER mistaken in identifying one type from another. A typical picture reflects the unique history of evolution of the underlying people, since each people has its own path of evolution, Indians are no exceptions.
oke, one could confuse an Indian with a Pakistanis, or an Afgans, or a Sri Lankan occasionally, but almost never, ever, with other races, impossible, except perhaps half a handful of carefully chosen Bollywood Superstars as a drop of a sea.
Onething I would add to the last few post from anon is the following.
There are a lot of ifs in the proposition that Indian IQ would someday get up to 94. If only India would have Western living standards.
Firstly, to get to Western country standards, India must continue the GDP growth as it has done for the last couple of decades. Outsourcing etc, while accounting for a small percentage of employment for India mainly in the extreme right end of the bell curve( 2-3 mil jobs), is accounting for disproportional amount of the GDP growth. My Indian friends tell me that all the companies are hiring their employees using basically IQ tests and it is getting more and more difficult to find good people. Even if the outsourcing market is infinite in size, which it is not, India will soon have a very difficult time continuing to grow this way.
Unless India can transitioned into a more manufacturing economy which employs more lower IQ people, the economic growth will slowly grind to a halt. My guess is in the next two decades.
Even with the high growth rate of the last couple of decades, the majority of the Indians have not seen much benefit. In fact, the lower half of India are consuming fewer calories than two decades ago!
How do we get to Western standard of living for the bulk of the population? We can't get there from here.
Even if we can get part way, the endemic corruption will ensure that only a handful benefits.
A look at other countries from similar genetic cluster like the Saudis and Kuwaities, who are approaching Western standard of living suggests that the improvement to that level of prosperity will only raise the IQ by a few points( the Middle Easterners are generally in the mid eighties).
Granted, Kuwait is not the U.S., but to go from Kuwait to U.S. standard of living will be a very small fraction of the gain compared to going from current Indian living standards to Kuwaiti standards since the current Indian standards are so dismal.
John
It seems to me that two Y-dna lineages seem to be contributing to Intelligence
O - (O1, O2, O3) Y dna among East Asians
R - (R1a, R1b, R2) Y dna among Eurasians
Historically calcutta/bengal had produced best literature,scientist,economist,music-
ian from entire asia-in 4 category as asia's first nobel prize winners.infact the first nobel prize winner of british empire-sir ronald ross discovered malaria here in kolkata.
the most famous scientist from entire asia in current world-sir jc bose-real inventor of radio as published by IEEE,and various other inventions-and a pioneer in plant biology.
best physicist of asia-satyendra bose who often features in top 25-50 greatest physicist of all time including the famous lev landau list,where he put bose at joint 3rd with all fathers of quantum.and so far in 3 different years 9 person had won nobel prize related to his theory.
ivf pioneer-subhas mukherjee whose work got nobel in 2010 but he died in 1981.
beside-in literature-tagore,william.m.t-hackrey
movie-one of top 10 director in film history-satyajit roy
in music-ravishankar who had great impact on the greatest musical entity of 20th century-beatles.
economist-sir partha dasgupta,amartya sen,micro credit pioneer md.yunus.
engineering-fazlur khan-the greatest architectural engineer of 20th century regarded as einstein of structural engineering,you tube co founder jayed karim,father of sound system-amar bose etc.
even the youngest pulitzer winner in us history-jhumpa lahiri is also from bengal.
hopefully it will say lot about the iq of people of bengal-only tokyo of japan can match with these figures from entire asia.
historically bengali and tamil brahmins had succeded more than any other commuynity of people-bengalis like rn tagore,satyajit roy,ravishankaer were global phenomenon.
ramanujan,raman carried the legacy of tamil brahmins.
but bengal had produced swami vivekananda,sn bose,jc bose(the last 2 most renowned physicist from asia of modern era)are bengali kayastha. so i think one need contribution from all communities rather than only any single particular ethnic group to accomplish the propaganda
amongst 11 indian chess grandmaster the champion anand is brahmin.amongst 5 bengali grand master 2 of them are brahmin,3 of them are non brahmin.
The Indian philosophical contributions are all from mostly Brahmins, rituals are only partial, the core is philosophy.They have a higher IQ as the transmission of Vedas are oral and hence a developed G-factor. as they used to have an advantage in being the highest on the ladder of the caste system. Kerala is the 100% literacy state in India is not due to 20% Christians which is obvious with the numbers, This was the influence from the British Raj. Christians are and Muslims are converts from backward caste and a mixed group. Here by I am not stating that Brahmins are genetically superior in IQ but they had many environmental advantages being the high class and hence high IQ, similarly Christians enjoyed many advantages in the British Raj,Bihar is another story , bad politics so in short average IQ is environmental other than genitcal unless for a genius. 100 + IQ is not a big deal, can be trained.
What I get from the comments is that whites-skinned people can only believe that other white-skinned people have high IQs. Hence all the bashing of Indians and Brahmins and praise for Chinese.
I've lived in the West a long time, and white IQ, including Ashkenazi, is highly overrated by themselves. You complain of Brahmin BS. What about your own?
You all talk as though you're expressing real scientific notions or genuine personal experience.
In reality, it's clear that you're just expressing your own ugly racial selves.
No,Indians are smart, with better environment Its over 106 in IQ.
I feel Indian IQ is very like the European IQ in the sense it is distributed widely,just much more so because of the castes. Chinese IQ will have a much flatter bell curve. We have hardly seen any profound philosophy,science or mathematics from the Mongolian race. On the other hand we have seen lots of evidence of technical brilliance from them.Historically, India exported spirituality and philosophy to the Orient. Buddhism was of course derivative(even if it opposed it in various aspects) and Buddha was a Hindu. Then all of the so called Arabic Maths was nothing but Indian. The script of technical Chinese brilliance plays itself again and again. Consider how Japan once seemed to threaten America in pre eminence but settled down to an unexciting but very rich second fiddle. Read the best Chinese newspapers or the social science coming out from China and then read the best Indian papers and the social science coming out from India.You will see the former is very technical, focused and mechanical. While the Indian,in no way world class, is way more creative and esoteric. It is the kind of things that excite the different societies. I suspect adopting Democracy and Communist dictatorship may also got something to do with IQ distribution,smart people tend to get impressed by the esoteric and theoretical charms of Democracy and pluralism whereas the efficient crave for order in a dictatorship.
Some here are quoting absurd figures for Indian castes. The real distribution is like this:
Brahmins4.5.percent
Vaishya/Baniya- 2percent
Rajputs/Kshatriya 3.5percent
Total-10percent
O.B.C.(Other backward
caste)-45
Sometimes people confuse these for middle or undefined category but in reality they are the original Shudra or the lowest category of caste in Hindu system. below them are outside the caste system Dalits or mostly Muslims who are 90%lower caste converts.
Dalits/SC-17
Muslims-15
Tribals/ST-8
Total-95
Rest are the Sikhs,Christians etc.
True some non traditionally upper caste are doing well but there number is very little. Khatri/Arora-0.5 of India do well but they are undefined caste,for they come from Punjab-and it is a state that was outside the core of Hindu India and is a mix genetically and culturally between Central,West Asia/South Asia. Then Nayars do well but there population is also something like 0.3-0.5 of India. They are mostly Brahmin converts. Then some think Patels do well,it is true. But Patels form nearly one third of population of Indian state of Gujarat which is 65 million. So there population is more than 20 million. Seen in that context they are way behind achievement level then forward caste average but they may be the most successful actual backward caste proper community in India.
All in all FC just make 10-15 of Indian population,depending upon your definition.
The last caste census of India took place in 1931 and all these figures are an extrapolation from that,of course I have accounted for Pakistan and Bangladesh separating away. Also my guess is population percentage would have remained pretty same. It is a common trend that the high IQ group tend to decline over time. But that is a modern trend and India was hardly modern until very recently. So while in the last 30 years FC relative population must have declined quite a bit,earlier than that it would have increased.(ancient evolutionary logic).
Another interesting point(for people who know the finer Indian caste difference)could be that Brahmins share of the upper caste population would have declined relative to Baniya/Vaishya category. It is because Brahmins have been traditionally better educated even relative to the average FC,while Baniya/Vaishya have been richer even relative to average FC. So when India experienced a phase of(1931-1981) of 'normal' evolutionary pressure Brahmin population compared to Vaishya population would have experienced lesser economic and hence survival advantages. And in the later modern evolutionary period(1981-present) Brahmins being more educated would have again been more influenced by the modern logic than Baniya/Vaishya as they were better educated. So my guess is while FC proper population percentage is 10%still,Brahmins would be 3.5-4%.And Baniya/Vaishya would be close to 2.5-3%. Rajput/KShatriya population trends I am less confident but maybe their relative share remained the same.But unfortunately the Baniya/Vaishya community too has taken up education big time in recent years so so chance for Eugenics,it is all gloomy Dysgenics here too.
So point is even if you combine FC proper and the more ambiguous groups like Khatris,Nayars and few non backward Sikhs,still FC population will remain below 15%.
Some people who are easily misled into thinking FC population is much larger due to the fact of some significant BC achievements,good example as I wrote above are Patels. But thing is we are so used to seeing almost all the high achiever posts(except politics) being taken over by a tiny FC population we react with surprise by a few BC high achievers. Still the 85-90% of BC do not take up any more than 15-20% of such posts. That is like close to 50 times over representation for FC. Even if you take genuine backward caste high achieving community like Patels,the FC as a whole would exceed Patels by close to 7-8 times(relative to population of course).That is abnormally high by any western/global standard(when talked in terms of class),but in India that is abnormally high from an inverted perspective.
Imagine a situation where the 10-15% FC corner just 40% of high achiever posts,that will still be around 4.6 times over representation for FC,but for the 'mainstream'Indians that will be cataclysmic and scarcely believable.
Sometimes in India people compare Indian caste situation to American Black/Hispanic case. But there is a very fundamental difference-Indian FC make 10-15% population.Whites in America make around 65% population.
I lost track of what I was trying to argue:)Maybe I give the impression of a frustrated lower class/caste radical-which I sure am not. Just stating the objective and quite obvious facts.
The statement by anon
"The idea tenaciously spread by Brahmins here and everywhere that they are a super intelligent breed is laughable nonsense.
The brahminical/casteist religion Hinduism condemns it's followers to the most abject poverty, hunger, unsanitary conditions on the face of the planet.
In India the citizens of the states with the most brahmins, the cow belt of the north, are hungrier, more poverty stricken than almost all Africans. The poorest state in India, Bihar, with 84% Hindus and less than 0.5% christians has a per capita income of ~$350 a year! The richest state in India, Goa, with ~30% Christians, has a per capita income ten times higher!
Kerala another southern state which has less than 1% Brahmins and ~ 20% Christians, has the highest literacy rate and life span in India and a per capita income 4 times that of Bihar.
Meanwhile the northern state of U.P. India's most populous state which has the highest concentration of Brahmins by far has a per capita income of less than $500 a year!"
Though I disagree with the tone, It can be safely said that there are no major IQ differences between various Indian castes/tribes. Only original and profound works in ancient India are by Buddhists. Infact Brahmin IQ would be closer to 70 if a suitable sized sample from North India is taken.
somebody said
"Famed national institutes of learning such as IITs, IIMs, NITs and AIIMS have always have had a good representation from Bihar which is usually higher than their proportion of the population."
The high proportion of Biharis is due to use of corrupt practices. One estimate places the students who get in at the IITs, IIMs, NITs and AIIMS using corrupt practices with the help of coaching institutes at 50% and that may be an understimate.
I read on the board professors (US) pointing out that Indian students cheat. There was similar comment on other professionals.
Now these are your Aryan upper caste students. Fot last three hundred years, the west has been singing panegyrics in the praise of these Aryan Brahmins who invaded India. Seems things have come a full circle.
Steve Sailer,
You have taken bits from different websites and trying to pass yourself off as pseudo-intellectual. You don't know next to nothing about India. You probably came across someones website where they suggested Muslims had low IQ and were low caste Hindu converts. Nothing could be further from truth.
Muslims converted from all castes. In fact, in order to avoid the large taxes imposed on Hindus of the day, many of them converted to Islam. Muslims were converts from all castes. There is in fact a recent study done on this.
If Muslims converted from lower castes only, why would Pakistan and Bangladesh have the same IQ as India?
Another thing to remember is, Muslims had been coming to the Indian Subcontinent from West Asia in a steady stream between 12th and 18th Centuries, so 6 or 7 centuries. In all cases they came without women. Do you seriously think they lived out a a life of celibacy and that some of them not married local women in the Subcontinent.
Another ting to note, Muslims in general (I say general, not true for everyone) tend to be lighter skinned than their Hindu counterparts in any region. The only people who match them are Brahmins. This should give us some indication that they came from all castes and very likely have some direct West Asian admixture.
As a side note, I don't think Indian Brahmins are particularly brilliant. Some exceptions of course. Indians abroad have a very strong worth ethic and become slaves to their line of education or career. Sure, they are more intelligent than Europeans generally but only a bit.
Steve read Indian/Chinese Iq puzzle.
Well Bengali Hindus with 30k population in Us has produced 3 American hall of fame inventor and more than 100 patents/10,000 population.
Amar Bose(Bengali Kayastha),Bedabrata Pain(Bengali upper caste),A.Chakraborty(Bengali Brahmin).
Now in terms of 10,000 population Ashkenazi have 46 patents and Japanese have 39 Us patents,but India with 3 million population has produced exactly 0 number of hall of fame inventors.
Also these Muslim posters are all liars who say that Muslim look similar to Brahmin.Take a look at Bengali Brahmin/Kayastha like Tagore?Swami Vivekananda...and take a look at Bengali Muslim...most of them look like tribes with average height 5ft 5" and average IQ 70-75 while Bengali Brahmin have IQ 115-122.
Don't believe a single world of these Pakistani/Indian Muslim liars.
@Steve Sailer
finally I have to handle it because you have given many wrong information here as pointed out by Abhirup (my friend) yesterday.
First,Amartya Sen and Sir Partha Dasgupta are Vaidya brahmin,not Kayastha as you have mentioned here.Vaidya means doctor who were Brahmins but started research on medicine,so their IQ will be in range of 110-115 but definitely lessre than Bengali kulin Brahmins(IQ 115-122).
Also,IIT's are dominated by Bengali,not Tamil Brahmins as some Tamil Brahmin liar have mentioned you.
Here is the list:Bengali hindu with 30,000 population have produced two American Hall of fame inventor(Amar Bose,Bedabrata Pain who went to space technology hall of fame with 87 patents)and finally A.Chakraborty who is the pioneer in genetic engineering and of the greatest biologist of all time but he has not won Nobel prize yet.
India with 3 million population have produced only 1 Hall of fame inventor and two other famous Narinder Kapany and Vinod Dham.
Bengali Hindu have more than 456 registered US patents from such tiny population...how this is possible?
Also IVF pioner Subhas Mukhopadhya who missed 2010 Nobel due to his tragic death in Kolkata was A Bengali Brahmin.
But our top 3 scientist/inventor are all Bose(J.C,Satyendra or Amar) belong to most elite Kayasta community who are second behind Kulin Brahmin of Bengal.
For more information:Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle(comments of mine)
The literacy of Bengali Hindu are second highest in India after Kerala christian ,so we can claim an IQ within range of 95 with Standard deviation of +/- 5.rest of Indian Hindu have average literacy 80% or less,so the average IQ will be somewhere around 85 with Standard deviation +/- 5.
Regards,Sampan
Hahaha good one! I'm sure some native Americans might have had something similar to say about the "un-American" looks of white Europeans & having "more than enough of them" there!
I don't know whether the Indian Brahmin IQ is 110 or not,but Bengali Brahmins tend to be world's smartest.
Take a look at patents/Population:Bengali Brahmins in USA have about 5K population and from that population we have made 1100+ patents which is world's best.
Bengali Brahmin working in Bengal have also produced Tagore,Amartya Sen,IVF pioneers Subhas Mukhopadhyay,U.N Bramhachari,statistician P.C Mahalanobis etc.
Even old tamil base in Singapore comprehensively outperformed malays. With regards to household incomes in 1990s (no smart migration), indians were 400 sgd below chinese on monthly incomes which is less than difference between chinese and japanese income in usa. In malaysia, smart professionals haven't migrated. Indians make up 30 pc of doctors in Malaysia being over represented compared to east Asians and malays.
In Australia, indians earn 2x and more than chinese. More than 50 pc chinese came with a bachelor's degree.
Search about indian diaspora in hong kong. They comprehensively outperform east asians and they are far from selected immigrants, mostly came as soldiers after ww2.
Search about household incomes in uk. Indians outperform east asians yet again.
About south africa data, the sample size is 40 and not reliable. In all socio-economic indicators, indians perform at par with whites. Indians have 14 pc millionaires in south africa from 2.5 pc population. Vs 55 pc from 10 pc white population. And 10 pc from 80 pc black population.
About Mauritius, chinese do not dominate business. Chinese make up 3 pc of Mauritius and own 10 pc of companies which is far from being called domination. As chinese in Mauritius are all located in urban areas, they perform at par with indian Mauritius in urban areas.
You cannot compare salaries of indians who are mostly located in villages to chinese who are mostly in urban areas.
Chinese in uk are selected for intelligence. Best would be chinese intelligence and not a good sample. best would be chinese in their homelands. Even in uk, chinese onky marginally outperform indians. In Singapore, https://data.gov.sg/dataset/percentage-of-gce-o-level-students-who-passed-english-language
Indians perform better than chinese and even low caste hindus perform better. So, indeed east asians have lower verbal iqs on average.
Chinese living in usa also underperform whites and indians on verbal sat.
Haha. Some South East Asians and East Asians, commenting how easy to would be to succeed in India. As people are not smart.
Reality Check:-
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1160616/jsp/northeast/story_91472.jsp#.WD64M7J97cc
45 students of ethnic Chinese ancestry (North East Indians) made it to IITs in 2016.
Out of 20,000 candidates that were selected.
Population size of North East Indians: 60 million (5 percent of India).
What’s worse. Out of 100,000 candidates; only 100 odd were from North East.
Not only, people from North East are massively under-represented (beyond belief) in India’s engineering and medical schools, even those who make it through from North East are of partial Indian ancestry. See link above.
Chinese in India:-
http://www.atimes.com/article/kolkatas-chinese-live-in-stateless-sorrow/
“They were shoe-makers, tanners, restaurateurs, hair-dressers or dry-cleaners.”
Chinese migration to India:-
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/VhMy2MGaVx1TEatRsQpnON/Chinese-immigrants--A-shrinking-community.html
"Most of these settlers came from Canton (or Guangdong), while people belonging to the Hubei community, who were dentists by profession, came from the eponymous neighbouring province."
.
CHINESE DENTISTS WHO MIGRATED TO INDIA SERVE AS SHOE MAKERS NOW.
.
.
.
Even shoe makers in India claim to be smarter now.
60 million South East Asians perform worse than the lowest Indian castes.
.
.
Indians in China:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indians_in_Hong_Kong
ndians are the richest ethnic group. And Indians migrated to Hong Kong after the end of WW2 as soldiers (no smart migration) and belong to OBC/SC category citizens as per Indian government. OBCs in India obtain a status similar to Hispanics in America and SCs in India obtain a similar status to African Americans.
90 percentile for Chinese living in Hong Kong barely earn at par with 75 percentile of Indians in HK.
Indian median income being 2x higher.
Incomes between whites and blacks parallel Indians and Chinese in Hong Kong.
.
.
Sorry to point out that these South East Asians and East Asians are way stupid than Indians.
Else there is no reason why 60 million South East Asians are producing 45/20,000 IIT students.
South Indians lack confidence and creativity, and so although they may possess a marginally higher IQ in comparison to Punjabis, it's put to no use, as they cannot create new methods or stand by them. They're only able to follow a pre-constructed system, and work within it. Take for example, Sunder Pichai.
Not true.
Your assumption is wrong.
British Sikhs financially outrank British Whites and Gujarati Hindus significantly more, not slightly. They rank only second to British Jews in terms of wealth.
As for the average British Sikh IQ, that would be lower than the average North Indian Brahmin IQ, which is around 105-110. Sikhs probably will be a few points lower as they are compromised of Brahmins/Kshatriyas/Vaishyas. In the UK, you will find mostly Kshatriyas/Vaishya Sikhs that have an average IQ of 100, far more higher than the predicted Indian average IQ of 94. I would say Gujaratis tend to lean more towards the average capability of Indians in the near future.
Post a Comment