You are on page 1of 10

Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen IQ and Global Inequality.

(Washington Summit Publishers, Atlanta, Georgia, 2006) (Source, Oct. 23, 20008: a link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality). The quality of human conditions (QHC) index was computed from five variables. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. purchasing power parity Gross National Income (PPP-GNI) per capita 2002 adult literacy rate 2002 gross tertiary enrollment ratio life expectancy at birth 2002 the level of democratization 2002 (Tatu Vanhanen's Index of Democratization)

Values of the index range from 10.7 (Burkina Faso) to 89 (Norway). Lynn and Vanhanen write that they would have preferred to include a sixth measure, an indicator of income inequality, but that statistical data for that variable was not available for all countries. They write that the QHC index differs significantly from other widely used indexes (such as the Human Development Index) in that QHC also measures democratization. Some of their claims have been received support in a 2007 study by Rindermann.[7]

The quality of human conditions (QHC) index.


11 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 89 N/A

based on BlankMap-World-v5.png. data from IQ and Global Inequality. // // //

National IQ and QHC values

Calculated and estimated national average IQ according to book.


65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 N/A

Country Hong Kong Singapore North Korea South Korea Japan People's Republic of China Republic of China Italy Iceland Mongolia Switzerland Austria Luxembourg Netherlands Norway United Kingdom

IQ (2002)[2] 107 103 105* 106 105 100 104 102 98* 98* 101 102 101* 102 98 100

IQ (2006)[1] 108 108 106* 106 105 105 105 102 101 101* 101 100 100* 100 100 100

PPP-GNI per capita 2002[1] 27,490 23,730 1,000 16,960 27,380 4,520 23,400 26,170 29,240 1,710 31,840 28,910 53,230 28,350 36,690 26,580

QHC[1] 60.8 60.7 38 75.4 71.4 39.7 79.4 78.9 80 48.1 82.2 80.7 76.4 82.8 89 76.7

Belgium Canada Estonia Finland Germany New Zealand Poland Sweden Andorra Australia Czech Republic Denmark France Hungary Latvia Spain United States Belarus Malta Russia Ukraine Moldova Slovakia Uruguay Israel Portugal Armenia Georgia Kazakhstan Romania Vietnam Argentina Bulgaria Greece Malaysia

100 97 97* 97 102 100 99 101 N/A 98 97 98 98 99 97* 97 98 96* 95* 96 96* 95* 96 96 94 95 93* 93* 93* 94 96* 96 93 92 92

99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 98* 98 98 98 98 98 98* 98 98 97* 97 97 97* 96* 96 96 95 95 94* 94* 94* 94 94 93 93 92 92

28,130 28,930 11,630 26,160 26,980 20,550 10,450 25,820 19,000 27,440 14,920 30,600 27,040 13,070 9,190 21,910 36,120 5,500 17,710 8,080 4,800 1,600 12,590 7,710 19,000 17,820 3,230 2,270 5,630 6,490 2,300 10,190 7,030 18,770 29,570

84.1 77.8 64.5 85.1 78 76.2 62.7 82.9 58.7 82.8 64.5 85.4 78.1 64.1 65.5 75.8 86.6 57.2 66.4 64.5 61.8 46.2 63.2 64 75.3 67 50.2 51.2 49 53 39.5 64.7 59.1 76.1 78.5

Ireland Brunei Cambodia Cyprus Lithuania Republic of Macedonia Thailand Albania Bermuda Bosnia and Herzegovina Chile Croatia Kyrgyzstan Turkey Mexico Cook Islands Costa Rica Laos Mauritius Suriname Ecuador Samoa Azerbaijan Bolivia Brazil East Timor Guyana Indonesia Iraq Myanmar Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan

93 92* 89* 92* 97* 93* 91 90* N/A N/A 93* 90 87* 90 87 N/A 91* 89* 81* 89 80 87 87* 85* 87 N/A 84* 89 87 86* 87* 87* 87*

92 91* 91* 91* 91 91* 91 90* 90 90* 90 90 90* 90 90 89 89* 89 89 89 88 88 87* 87 87 87* 87* 87 87 87* 87* 87* 87*

8,500 19,210 1,970 18,650 10,190 6,420 6,890 4,960 36,000 5,800 9,420 10,000 1,560 6,300 12,500 5,000 8,650 1,660 10,820 6,590 3,340 5,570 3,010 2,390 7,450 3,940 3,070 1,600 1,027 930 1,640 4,780 1,640

52.1 50.8 28.6 67.6 65.4 54.4 50.3 51.2 75.8 51.4 59.5 61.7 48.1 50.2 52.9 45.7 53.7 24.9 52.2 50.6 47.4 49.7 47.2 49.7 51.1 46.7 40.2 28.1 30.7 42.4 27.5 41.7 39.4

Kuwait Philippines Seychelles Tonga Cuba Fiji Kiribati New Caledonia Peru Yemen Afghanistan Belize Colombia Federated States of Micronesia Iran Jordan Marshall Islands Morocco Pakistan Panama Paraguay Puerto Rico Saudi Arabia Solomon Islands The Bahamas Vanuatu Venezuela Algeria Bahrain Libya Oman Papua New Guinea

83* 86 81* 87 85 84 84* N/A 90 83* 83* 83* 88 84* 84 87* 84 85 81* 84* 85* 84 83* 84* 78* 84* 88* 84* 83* 84* 83* 84*

86 86 86* 86 85 85 85* 85 85 85* 85 84* 84* 84 84* 84 84 84 84 84 84* 84 84 84* 84* 84* 84* 84* 84 83* 83* 83* 83* 83

17,780 4,450 18,232 6,820 5,259 5,330 800 21,960 4,880 9,000 800 700 15,960 5,490 6,150 6,690 4,180 1,600 2,000 3,730 1,960 6,060 4,590 15,800 12,660 1,590 24,030 2,850 5,220 5,530 16,190 7,570 13,000 2,180

49.9 51.6 60.6 40.5 46.2 51.9 37.1 54.9 49.2 52 24.5 13.2 56.1 44.2 48.4 40.2 43.4 44.2 39.9 31.7 26.2 56.6 45.2 63.6 44.1 41.5 48.8 31.4 47.4 39.9 49.3 49.3 40.6 38.4

Trinidad and Tobago 80*

United Arab Emirates 83*

Syria Tunisia Bangladesh Dominican Republic India Lebanon Madagascar Egypt Honduras Maldives Nicaragua Northern Mariana Islands Barbados Bhutan El Salvador Guatemala Sri Lanka Nepal Qatar Comoros Cape Verde Mauritania Uganda Kenya South Africa Tanzania Ghana Grenada Jamaica

87* 84* 81* 84* 81 86 79* 83 84* 81* 84* N/A 78 78* 84* 79 81* 78 78 79* 78* 73* 73 72 72 72 71 75* 72

83 83* 82* 82 82 82 82 81 81 81* 81* 81 80 80* 80* 79 79 78 78 77* 76* 76* 73 72 72 72 71 71* 71 71 71 71 70*

5,348 6,440 1,720 6,270 2,650 4,600 730 3,810 2,540 4,798 2,350 12,500 14,660 1,969 4,790 4,040 3,510 1,370 19,844 1,640 4,920 1,790 1,360 1,010 9,810 580 2,080 6,600 3,680 5,190 1,740 800 10,390

38.9 40.6 29.8 46.8 36.3 55.8 28.6 37.3 41.9 38.5 41.3 51.3 60.9 24.1 42.6 34.6 47.7 26.9 45.6 24.6 40.5 20.5 25.4 27.3 38.3 23.2 33.7 45.3 46.5 48.4 24.6 21.8 53.2

Saint Vincent and the 75* Grenadines Sudan Zambia 72 77

Antigua and Barbuda 75*

Benin Botswana Namibia Rwanda Togo Burundi Cte d'Ivoire Malawi Mali Niger Nigeria Angola Burkina Faso Chad Djibouti Eritrea Somalia Swaziland Dominica Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti Lesotho Liberia So Tom and Prncipe Senegal The Gambia Zimbabwe Republic of the Congo Cameroon Central African Republic

69* 72* 72* 70* 69* 70* 71* 71* 68* 67* 67 69* 66* 72* 68* 68* 68* 72* 75* 63 63* 72* 72* 64*

70* 70* 70* 70* 70* 69* 69* 69* 69* 69* 69 68* 68* 68* 68* 68* 68* 68* 67 67 67* 67* 67* 67* 67* 67* 66* 66* 66 65 64 64

1,060 7,740 6,880 1,260 1,450 630 1,450 570 840 800 800 1,840 1,090 1,010 2,040 1,040 500 4,730 4,960 2,060 680 1,610 2,970 1,000 10,750 1,317 1,660 1,540 2,180 630 1,910 1,170

20.5 29.4 31.1 18.5 26 15.2 18.1 24.3 13.4 13.5 27.3 13.7 10.7 20.4 22 21.4 15.2 22.2 48.8 22.5 20.3 20.4 24.3 21.2 45.5 37.9 20.7 21.3 25.2 17.9 23.1 19.1

Saint Kitts and Nevis 75* 59* 64* 64* 66 73 70* 68*

Democratic Republic 65 of the Congo Ethiopia Gabon Mozambique Sierra Leone Saint Lucia Equatorial Guinea 63 66* 72* 64 75* 59

64 64 64* 64 64 62 59

700 780 5,530 990 500 4,950 9,100

26.9 16.7 32.2 18 13.8 51.1 30.4

"*" Denotes estimated National IQ PPP-GNI = purchasing power parity gross national income. QHC = is a composite index called quality of human conditions. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Criticism
Hunt and Wittmann (2008) write of Lynns IQ data: The majority of the data points were based upon convenience rather than representative samples. Some points were not even based on residents of the country. For instance, the data point for Suriname was based on tests given to Surinamese who had migrated to the Netherlands, and the data point for Ethiopia was based on the IQ scores of a highly selected group that had emigrated to Israel and, for cultural and historical reasons was hardly representative of the Ethiopian population. The data point for Mexico was based on a weighted averaging of the results of a study of Native American and Mestizo children in Southern Mexico with result of a study of residents of Argentina [8]. Upon reading the original reference, they found that the data point that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain. Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ cohorts (the Flynn effect) on the assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved. While there appears to be rather little evidence on cohort effect upon IQ across the developing countries, one study in Kenya (Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, & Neumann, 2003) shows a substantially larger cohort effect than is reported for developed countries (p.?) [9] Crawford-Nutt (1976) found that African black students enrolled in westernized schools scored higher on progressive matrix tests than did American white students. The study was meant to examine perceptual/cultural differences between groups, and demonstrated that ones performance on western standardized tests correspond more closely with the quality and style of schooling that one receives more so than other factors [10]. Buj (1981)

showed Ghanaian adults to score higher on a supposedly culture fair IQ test than did Irish adults; scores were 80 (Ghanaian) and 78 (Irish), respectively [11]. ShuttleworthEdwards et al (2004) conducted a study with black South Africans between the ages of 1930, where highly significant effects for both level and quality of education within groups whose first language was an indigenous black African language, was revealed. Black African first language groups (as well as white English speaking groups) with advantaged education were comparable with the US standardization in IQ test scores (e.g. WAIS-III)[12]. [Footnotes] 7 ^ Rindermann, Heiner: The g-factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: the homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-tests across nations. European Journal of Personality 21 (2007) 667-706 [1 8 ^ Hunt, E. & Wittmann, W. (2008). National intelligence and prosperity. Intelligence. Vol. 36, 1, January-February pp. 1-9. 9 ^ Hunt, E. & Wittmann, W. (2008). National intelligence and prosperity. Intelligence. Vol. 36, 1, January-February pp. 1-9. 10 ^ Crawford-Nutt. D. (1976). Are black scores on Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices an artifact of method of test presentation? Psychologia Africana, 16, 201-206 11 ^ Buj, V. (1981). "Average IQ values in various European countries." Personality and Individual Differences, 2:168-169 12 ^ Shuttleworth-Edwards A., Kemp R., Rust A., Muirhead J., Hartman N., Radloff S. (2004). Cross-cultural Effects on IQ Test Performance: A Review and Preliminary Normative Indications on WAIS-III Test Performance. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology (Neuropsychology, Developm, Volume 26, Number 7, October 2004 , pp. 903-920(18) -=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=--= g-factor defined: General Factor of Intelligence (Derived from Notes from the Source, above). Charles Spearman's (1904, 1927) seminal concept of g, the general factor of intelligence. The average differences in IQ found between Blacks and Whites has a substantial hereditary component, and that this difference has important societal consequences. However, The g Factor [as a book by Arthur Robert Jensen, Professor Emeritus of Educational Psychology, Graduate School of Education, Univ. Calif., Berkeley, The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence (Praeger Publishers, Westport, Conn., 1998, 600p); nor as a scientific definition] is not about race, as such. RE: Chinese high IQ: Chinese aren't that smart, it's a sampling error if they took high school Chinese as a sample, since a significant proportion of Chinese don't have high

school education.; There are so many Chinese I would say it would be difficult to not have some smart people. Besides, can we believe a study with this many people could actually get a large enough sample?; I think those supporters of large scale immigration into this country should read these articles.; Most of international surveys on China are bound to have the "disproportional representation", since most surveyors don't speak Chinese and their super-complex, various dialects which outnumbers all European languages, and even if they speak Chinese, their surveys will be limited in several big cities, where Human Development Condition is much better than most of China. In fact, most of the surveyors only met English-speaking, college-educated Chinese white collars in Beijing, Shanghai and other large cities. So I say, they overestimate Chinese average IQ. ; -0-00-0-00-0-0-0-0 (SEE ALSO, PDF FILE: Ashkenazi IQ History, Gregory Cochran, Henry Harpending, and Jason Hardy entitled The Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence. (Gregory Cochran, et al.), at: homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf