Recent Posts
Is indian iq really 82?
ejpB7z
No.321522
Just finished reading PDF of 'IQ and Wealth of Nations' by Lynn and Vanhanen. Are the studies cited in the book reliable?
jN+j24
No.321523
>>321522(OP)
Yes and I don't need to explain why you know answer yourself.
yMjd4S
No.321524
>>321522(OP)
yes, because over population
ejpB7z
No.321527
>>321523
So are we destined to be a middle income country forever?
QU0/Up
No.321529
>>321522(OP)
It's 72
ejpB7z
No.321530
>>321524
Taiwan, South korea, netherlands have greater population density than india.
ejpB7z
No.321532
>>321529
76 is the lowest estimate.
3KEKC7
No.321534
Only 10% of population even finished college.
!9UkXuvgnpqJE2QE
B+D2/o
No.321544
>>321522(OP)
I certainly believe that due to my conversations with the absolute retards on this chan.
YhA2G/
No.321545
>>321522(OP)
short answer no, average IQ of Indians according to latest survey is 77, however, this co relates more with lack of educational opportunities than mental of capacity of the said demography, for example average IQ of kerela and Delhi is 110 which is higher than united states of America, IQ test doesn't test intelligence and wisdom, it tests how well the test takes was educated.
7+L2mu
No.321551
does it matter? you will still be a NEET
aHzVz6
No.321555
>>321522(OP)
Definitely. If imageboard pajeets can be this retarded then 82 is fairy generous for average pajeet population
ejpB7z
No.321556
>>321545
Higher iq is the causal agent for educational attainment not the other way round. Iq tests dont require anything apart from very basic literacy and numeracy and even that isnt required for raven matrices(those pattern recognition questions).
JMmDxs
No.321574
>>321534
doesn't really mean anything, the united states had ~15% of the population with college degrees in the 60s
>>321556
not really, educational attainment does effect iq assuming that everyone goes through the same education. i.e. non highschool degree will have lower iq than if he finished highschool. Universities are more selective
nLgBrv
No.321584
JMmDxs
No.321591
>>321522(OP)
>is indian iq really 82
no, no nation can organise itself with that low intellgence on average.
Lynn's a moron, his work is largely discredited for developing nations, ignore him. Besides National iqs can only really be found out accurately for developed nations.
ejpB7z
No.321599
>>321574
>non highschool degree will have lower iq than if he finished highschool.
Thats because higher education selects for higher iq. It doesnt cause high iq. Iq is 80% genetic. Average iq of graduates in 1939 in west was 119 and it has fallen down to 102 today now that college education has become accessible for general public.
zbbyeC
No.321604
>>321599
>Average iq of graduates in 1939 in west was 119 and it has fallen down to 102 today now that college education has become accessible for general public.
Or maybe they improved in collecting the data? Immigration from poorer countries is another reason. You are overstating genetic aspects.
Better nutrients, education will go long way
QU0/Up
No.321607
>>321532
Sure thing buddy
ejpB7z
No.321627
>>321604
>maybe they improved in collecting the data?
It was a gradual decline over the years. Its pretty obvious what the cause is when you consider how rare and selective college education used to be before.
>You are overstating genetic aspects.
Heritability of iq is well established by now.
zbbyeC
No.321629
JMmDxs
No.321630
>>321599
do you even know the methodology of iq collection back then? mental age : birth age ratios are incredibly unreliable. Data around ~100 iq is more accurate. Also IQ isn't wholly hereditary, not even Binet believed this.
lzIXPH
No.321642
>>321522(OP)
82 iq meaning unable to do simple things like buttoning your shirt without help.
what do you think?
even illiterate sabji walas do math mentally here and the white faggots take out calculators to calculate 13 + 27 + 19.99.
don't take what white faggots say about Indians seriously.
ejpB7z
No.321648
>>321629
By twin and adoption studies. BTW genetic science has reached a point where we can even do genetic testing for your intelligence now with great degree of accuracy.
ejpB7z
No.321651
>>321630
Iq testing has existed for long and as i said it has been a steady decline of 17 points since 1939 and we have enough data for it.
>IQ isn't wholly hereditary.
Duh. Its 80% genetic not 100%.
ejpB7z
No.321656
>>321642
>82 iq meaning unable to do simple things like buttoning your shirt without help.
Says who? 82 iq people are completely functional. Mild intellectual disability starts manifesting below 70. Also not every intellectually disabled person is a downie or autist so they can seem totally normal on surface.
JMmDxs
No.321659
>>321651
>Iq testing has existed for long and as i said it has been a steady decline of 17 points since 1939 and we have enough data for it.
mental age/actual age is a retarded method of estimation, so I entirely disagree
>Duh. Its 80% genetic not 100%.
its 40 to 60%
ejpB7z
No.321663
>>321659
>mental age/actual age is a retarded method of estimation, so I entirely disagree.
Who says they are using that method? Iq testing has existed for more than a century now.
>>321659
>its 40 to 60%.
Cope. Its around 80% by adulthood as shown by multiple studies. Heritability of iq increases with age (Wilson effect).
lzIXPH
No.321675
3KEKC7
No.321703
FFHVG2
No.321707
>>321703
I guess, the point is that 60s USA was thriving
ejpB7z
No.321724
>>321675
Thats requirement for the military. Sub 85 people do just fine in the society usually working in low end non complex jobs like janitors, welders, labourers.
lzIXPH
No.321726
>>321724
you have completely missed the point.
the military had the most incentive to not reject people and thus it gives more validity to their findings.
otherwise it's irrelevant whether military did it or somebody else did it.
ejpB7z
No.321732
>>321726
Military has to train them in combat as well not merely hire them for those menial jobs. Sub 85 iq people are liability in combat hence and are not worth the training costs.
lzIXPH
No.321761
>>321732
he was talking about any use and that included non combat roles like back office jobs.
this was mentioned more clearly in another video of his but i am not able to find the right one. will share if i find it but for now you can take my word. if anybody else finds it please share it too.
RPYD3t
No.321770
>>321522(OP)
Well look around yourself and talk to people and figure for yourself
ejpB7z
No.321816
>>321761
No. He mentioned that military needed men to act as reserves for war besides working in menial jobs in military. Thats how even indian army works. Even the sweeper is trained in basic soldiering.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/84qmsj/source_of_83_iq_minimum_for_the_us_military/
hqX0JP
No.321866
>>321816
sorry but i don't see him meaning to say that from any of his videos. but i will reply/create a thread once i find a better source.
sQApf3
No.321884
>>321522(OP)
Yes
