# Smartest Nation...?



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

and why?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Scotland, obviously.

The telephone, televison and penicillin were all invented by Scots, amongst many other vital ingredients of modern life - specifically golf and whisky.

Also the export to the new world of many of the ideas and philosophies upon which free and democratic societies are built, plus the people to build those societies.

And a school and university system designed to allow the benefits of education to be spread to the broadest population.

And putting up with the bloody English all this time (I hope everyone saw the rugby score from Murrayfield yesterday - Scotland 18 - 12 England. The Calcutta Cup returns home and English Grand Slam aspirations are foiled. Well played boys!)

------------------


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

I nominate Sweden, though I'll give my reasons after more have contributed.

This is a fascinating look at the relative geographic knowledge of young people (18-24) of nine countries:

_*Survey Results: U.S. Young Adults Are Lagging*_

Despite the daily bombardment of news from the Middle East, Central Asia, and other world trouble spots, roughly 85 percent of young Americans could not find Afghanistan, Iraq, or Israel on a map, according to a new study.

Americans ages 18 to 24 came in next to last among nine countries in the National Geographic-Roper 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey, which quizzed more than 3,000 young adults in Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, and the United States. Top scorers were young adults in Sweden, Germany, and Italy.

Out of 56 questions that were asked across all countries surveyed, on average young Americans answered 23 questions correctly. Others outside the U.S., most notably young adults in Mexico, also struggled with basic geography facts. Young people in Canada and Great Britain fared almost as poorly as those in the U.S.

Among young Americansâ€™ startling knowledge gaps, the study found that

â€¢ nearly 30 percent of those surveyed could not find the Pacific Ocean, the worldâ€™s largest body of water;

â€¢ more than halfâ€"56 percentâ€"were unable to locate India, home to 17 percent of people on Earth; and

â€¢ only 19 percent could name four countries that officially acknowledge having nuclear weapons.

Several perhaps interrelated factors affected performanceâ€"educational experience (including taking a geography course), international travel and language skills, a varied diet of news sources, and Internet use. *Americans who reported that they accessed the Internet within the last 30 days scored 65 percent higher than those who did not.'*


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Scotland, obviously.
> 
> The telephone..invented by Scots,


Actually, the Swedes invented the _modern_ telephone 

'The modern telephone was constructed by a Swede with the name Lars Magnus Ericsson. At that time, telephones had the mouthpiece built in, while the speaker was connected to the telephone by a flex. Ericsson's new idea was to combine the two into a single receiver. In 1876 he founded the Ericsson company in Stockholm.'

from


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

&gt; The telephone, televison and penicillin were all invented by Scots,

A German student, Nipkow, invented the first electromechanical monitor/camera system, followed by Zworkin's demonstration of a slightly more advanced system.

Baird's system was more advanced still, but was still primitve compared to modern electrical systems.

The forefather of the modern electronic television is Philo Farnsworth, who came up with the idea when he was 14. He actually won a patent dispute with RCA when he was in his 20's.


Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

France!

Food, wine, and style.

[ducks]

Stap my vitals!


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> â€¢ nearly 30 percent of those surveyed could not find the Pacific Ocean, the worldâ€™s largest body of water;
> 
> ...


Yes, this may be true of American students...but they have extraordinary self-esteem...they also know a lot about sex and drugs.

Regards,


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> > The telephone, televison and penicillin were all invented by Scots,
> 
> ...


Granted, there are many fathers of television.

Interestingly, Baird is universally accepted in the UK as inventor of the television. I'd never heard of Farnsworth until I got to N America where he is regarded as its inventor.

Bell is also claimed by many having been born and started his work in Scotland before emigrating to Canada and then the US. Each country claims Bell and his telephone as their own.

------------------


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Bell is also claimed by many having been born and started his work in Scotland before emigrating to Canada and then the US. Each country claims Bell and his telephone as their own.
> 
> ------------------


Ummm...who said Bell invented the Telephone to begin with...anybody ever hear of an inventor by the name of Antonio Meucci???

Let me be the first to Render votes for Italy and the USA...

Italy because throughout history, it would be hard to dispute the fact that they have made more valuable contributions to the arts, philosophy, sciences, literature, technology, agriculture, style, and gastronomy than any other nation...

And the USA because it would be hard to remain on top for as long as we have by not being the smartest...

*****
[image]https://radio.weblogs.com/0119318/Screenshots/rose.jpg[/image]"See...What I'm gonna do is wear a shirt only once, and then give it right away to the laundry...eh?
A new shirt every day!!!"​


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Again, success has many fathers while failure remains an orphan.

I hadn't heard of Meucci, but you wil concede that Bell is generally acknowledged, at least in the anglosphere, as inventor of the telephone.

------------------


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

indeed, up untill recently, if you werent Italian (or an honorary Italian like me ), most people probably had no idea...but just a few years ago, the US recognized Meucci as the inventor of the telephone (or at least gave him some credit)...although I believe Canada still leaves that honor solely with Bell...

*****
[image]https://radio.weblogs.com/0119318/Screenshots/rose.jpg[/image]"See...What I'm gonna do is wear a shirt only once, and then give it right away to the laundry...eh?
A new shirt every day!!!"​


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> Americans who reported that they accessed the Internet within the last 30 days scored 65 percent higher than those who did not.'[/b]


Isn't anybody who hasn't accessed the Internet once in a month (if only to visit a porn site!) pretty darn Stone Age these days?

My first thought was Scotland...at least historically. Don't know that it still holds true today.


----------



## Dr James Ryan (Feb 8, 2006)

In terms of highest per-capita IQ? Probably Isreal.

In terms of contributions to the world? Without a doubt, Greece and the USA. Italy and the Brits would follow them, then France and Germany.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Please define smartness. It's well and good to invent gadgets. But of what merit is a cellphone over bullroarer or some topical medicine with an endless list of side effects vs honey? I see a saturn rocket blasting into space and only see a atl atl, or spear thrower. The concepts the same, extending our reach. To me, a 'smart society' is one that has achieved a social stasis of harmony with nature and each other while still allowing creative thought.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> I nominate Sweden, though I'll give my reasons after more have contributed.
> 
> ...


You cannot just accept such research without having the experimental methods in front of you....I've also read that 50% of college students were not able to locate Canada on a map of NA.....I doubt either of these studies included a heterogeneous sample

MrR

o, my vote would be for Italy....Intelligence in America is highly concentrated in certain areas and certainly lacking in others

"Give me the luxuries in life and I'll gladly go without the necessities"


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

Vatican City. High intelligence is a prerequisite to become a citizen.


----------



## mgnov (Jan 11, 2006)

The British Indian Ocean Territories.

Or dolphins...supposedly.

Or dolphins who swim near the British Indian Ocea oh forget it!


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by The Gabba Goul_
> 
> indeed, up untill recently, if you werent Italian (or an honorary Italian like me ), most people probably had no idea...but just a few years ago, the US recognized Meucci as the inventor of the telephone (or at least gave him some credit)...although I believe Canada still leaves that honor solely with Bell...
> 
> ...


funny story, GG, I just met, last week, one of the lawyers on the team that won the recognition of this. they spent about 20 years working on getting recognition for the fact. now they are shifting into the compensation issue....


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Dr James Ryan_
> 
> In terms of highest per-capita IQ? Probably Isreal.
> 
> In terms of contributions to the world? Without a doubt, Greece and the USA. Italy and the Brits would follow them, then France and Germany.


I am not sure about per capita IQ, although somebody could make an argument that israel has the highest per capita IQ (although I would like to see if there are records for singapore and hong kong - two other small polis with a possible genetic inclination for high IQ's and a tradition of education and a high number of immigrants). in terms of education per capita it would be hard to beat- Israel has the highest number of doctors, lawyers and engineers per capita in the world.

for a country its size, Israel has contributed a huge amount in terms of inventions in the past 50 years. basically, if you use a computer, a cell phone, have spent the night in a hospital or have flown in an airplane or riden in a tank, you have used or benifited from one or another israeli invention.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

I'll throw in a vote for the real inventors of whiskey, the Irish. 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385418493/002-7292980-9744068?v=glance&n=283155

CT


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mgnov_
> 
> The British Indian Ocean Territories.
> 
> ...


"Thanks for all the fish."


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:
> You cannot just accept such research without having the experimental methods in front of you....I've also read that 50% of college students were not able to locate Canada on a map of NA.....I doubt either of these studies included a heterogeneous sample
> 
> MrR


Here is a 75-page *.pdf file by the National Geographic Educational Foundation with all of the information about the survey, including (of course) methodology. Enjoy:



> quote:The British Indian Ocean Territories.
> 
> Or dolphins...supposedly.
> 
> Or dolphins who swim near the British Indian Ocea oh forget it!


 [:I]


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Dr James Ryan_
> 
> In terms of highest per-capita IQ? Probably Isreal.
> 
> In terms of contributions to the world? Without a doubt, Greece and the USA. Italy and the Brits would follow them, then France and Germany.


The USA? What particular contibution to the world has the USA made? No doubt their own societal experiment has proven succesful and their contribution in the great conflicts of the last century were invaluable - along with the efforts of many other nations.

In terms of the spread of democracy and freedom, the British empire has been a far more significant factor than the USA.

------------------


----------



## manicturncoat (Oct 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by The Gabba Goul_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I second Italy, and along with Meucci let us not forget Marconi.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As Gerald Early has famously noted, there are three: Baseball, the Constitution, and Jazz. I would expand the third to "African-American Music." Not bad, actually.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

You forgot the comic strip and the motion picture.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Concordia_
> 
> You forgot the comic strip and the motion picture.


And the crossword puzzle.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

And, being obvious, the internet 


Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> And, being obvious, the internet
> 
> Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


Napalm and nukes should probably rank up there as well; but others would have gotten around to developing those, even if we hadn't. Jazz, on the other hand. . . .

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

In the part of Italy where the Northern League and Umberto Bossi are popular they joke that Sicily is the smartest country in the world bc it is the only Arab country not to declare war on Israel!

Karl


----------



## Briguy (Aug 29, 2005)

Canada. 

Looking at Windsor from an office building in Detroit, I see: clean streets, top notch hockey, Molson, the culture of the Windsor Ballet, a tolerant society, and no one ever, anywhere in the world, is ever angry with Canada over anything.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Gents,
> 
> ...


Funny guys, those bonerists . . .

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> Canada.
> 
> Looking at Windsor from an office building in Detroit, I see: clean streets, top notch hockey, Molson, the culture of the Windsor Ballet, a tolerant society, and no one ever, anywhere in the world, is ever angry with Canada over anything.


Sure, but Canada is a Scottish invention!

No disrespect to the First Nations peoples who had occupied the land for millenia, but modern Canada was built by the Scots.

------------------


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Le Parti Quebecoise (sp?) may disagree, just a little bit.
Cheers


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

OK, English speaking Canada was created by the Scots.

------------------


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Concordia_
> You forgot the comic strip


That's only true if you have a very narrow definition of the term. What we French call _bande dessinÃ©e_ (comic books, comic strips, graphic novels) has a lot of historical prefigurations. But the inventor of the genre is usually considered to be Rodolph TÃ¶pffer, a Swiss, in the early XIXth century. I have always been rather surprised that American presentations of comics usually don't talk about him and his followers and begin with the first comic strips in American newspapers about 50 years later.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> and no one ever, anywhere in the world, is ever angry with Canada over anything.


Don't know about that - Bill O'Reily and Pat Buchanan, among others, get their right wing panties in a knot every now and then over some Canadian supposed faux pas.

We must be doing something right.......

------------------


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> Canada.
> Looking at Windsor from an office building in Detroit, I see:
> clean streets,


I've been, and yes, they are very clean looking, from afar 



> quote:
> top notch hockey,


You *are* in Detroit, right? You can't find a decent game of hockey in Detroit? I know Canadians who come to Detrot for hockey...



> quote:
> Molson,


Oh man, you can't find anything better than Molson in Detroit? Go check out Dragonmead in Warren.



> quote:
> the culture of the Windsor Ballet,


Erm, I'll take a symphony over a Ballet, and a good jazz club over a symphony.



> quote:
> a tolerant society,


Aaah, a more tolerant society, maybe. No absolutes.



> quote:and no one ever, anywhere in the world, is ever angry with Canada over anything.


Denmark would disagree...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Dr James Ryan (Feb 8, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The great breakthroughs in Computing and Medicine in the 20th century have come from the USA. Combine that with the mode of governement successfully implemented in the 18th century (every other current 1st world government is derivative of the US's, and yet none of got it quite as right as the USA did 250 years ago), the world's first sizable middle-class, and saving the world from Tyranny in WW2, anyone downplaying the US's contribution to the world is in denial.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Dr James Ryan_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ha! You may wish to try removing the blinkers there old chap. Great breakthroughs in medicine? What, like penicillin, surely the greatest medical discovery of the 20th century, made by Alexander Fleming. Or the first heart transplant carried out in South Africa? The first test tube baby, in the UK?

Computing? Much of the early development work on computers happened in the UK, specifically in code vbreaking work during the war and in university research in the post war years.



> quote:Combine that with the mode of governement successfully implemented in the 18th century (every other current 1st world government is derivative of the US's, and yet none of got it quite as right as the USA did 250 years ago), the world's first sizable middle-class, and saving the world from Tyranny in WW2, anyone downplaying the US's contribution to the world is in denial.


Mode of government? Well, you will see that the US mode of government is greatly derivative of the UK's with some notable differences, specifically in the separation of powers. But other 1st world countries? What, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand? All with a Westminster style parliament. Or do you men like France, Italy and Germany?

Again, the UK has had a sizeable middle class since the mid 1700's at least . You need to look beyond the confines of the US for facts like these.

As for saving the world from tyranny in WW2, while no-one in their right mind will deny the US contribution in that conflict, bear in mind that Britain and her commonwealth partners had been fighting for over two years before the Americans entered the war and that the decisive contribution was undoubtedly that of the USSR. To imply that the US "saved" the world is offensive to the many millions from other nations who fought facism just as hard and longer than the USA did.

None of this is meant to be anti-American, but i find it incredible the claims that some Americans will make about their country without the slightest basis in fact.

------------------


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Inventions and technology is my bag, so I don't mean to sound harsh when correcting people, just setting the record straight 



> quote:Computing? Much of the early development work on computers happened in the UK, specifically in code vbreaking work during the war and in university research in the post war years.


You are correct in that many of the foundations in computer science were layed in England. Lady Lovelace and Babbage, inspired by the works on differential algebra by the great French mathematician LaPlace and the automatic, "programmable" looms of the day, did some of the first work on formal computing engines in the early 1800s. In the mid 1800s the English mathematician Boole layed out the bulk of the math on which modern computers are based.

Turing did some phenomenal work, but Konrad Zuse from Germany is generally considered to be the creator of the first, truely configurable/programmable computer. It was a milestone in computer science, however most modern computers are patterened after the design layed out by Howard Aiken and his Harvard team. The most common PC architecture was designed by the Hungarian mathematician von Neumann, working at Los Alamos and Princeton, and was based on Zuse's work.

Beyond that, most major, practical developments come from the USA, including the first Turing-complete electronic computer (Eniac,) first commercially available computer (UNIVAC) the transistor (Bell Labs), the integrated circuit (TI), complete high level programming language (IBM/Fortran) video game (MIT/Spacewar) computer network (ARPAnet) dynamic RAM and microprocessor (Intel), spreadsheet, word processor, graphical user interface, magnetic disk drive, network topologies (ethernet, token ring, X.25, TCP/IP) removable floppy drive, and, into the modern era, quantum algorithms and computing devices from AT&T, MIT and Los Alamos. The list goes on and on.

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Appreciate the clarifications.

Again it was a Scotsman responsible for an even earlier computing device, Napier's Bones invented by John Napier of Merchiston, percursor of the modern slide rule. Napier was also the inventor of logarithms.

------------------


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Appreciate the clarifications.
> Again it was a Scotsman responsible for an even earlier computing device, Napier's Bones invented by John Napier of Merchiston, percursor of the modern slide rule. Napier was also the inventor of logarithms.


Correct, however computing 'devices' have been around in one form or another in just about every culture since humans began using tools. The big innovation in the last couple of hundred years has been the reconfigurable computer, the acid test being "Turing completeness," meaning the device can be configured to solve a mathematical computation of any arbitrary complexity, given enough time and/or speed.

This level of advanced computing device really began with Babbage and Lovelace, working out the first algorithms capable of solving other algorithms of (somewhat) varying complexity in preparation for his difference engine. Everything that came previously were basically calculators or tabulators of one form or another.

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Dr James Ryan_
> 
> In terms of highest per-capita IQ? Probably Isreal.
> 
> In terms of contributions to the world? Without a doubt, Greece and the USA. Italy and the Brits would follow them, then France and Germany.


Israel has a mean below that of the US. In terms of contribution, Charles Murray has an entire book that deals with that subject: Human Accomplishment. In it, he notes that 4 countries have contributed most to the advancement of civilization (prior to 1950): England, Italy, France, and Germany. Good book. I bought my copy inexpensively on the Web.

As for the IQ data, please read:
Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen. IQ and the Wealth of Nations

This book has been reviewed and re-reviewed and has been analyzed in great detail (actual reanalysis of the numbers and confirmations of their accuracy). I have heard several papers presented on the subject in the past two years. Some of the country data are approximations, but the general methodology is sound and has withstood the close scrutiny. Here are his findings:

National IQ based on arithmetic means:
Afghanistan IQ 83, Albania IQ 90, Algeria IQ 84, Angola IQ 69, Antigua and Barbuda IQ 75, Argentina IQ 96, Armenia IQ 93, Australia IQ 98, Austria IQ 102, Azerbaijan IQ 87, Bahamas IQ 78, Bahrain IQ 83, Bangladesh IQ 81, Barbados IQ 78, Belarus IQ 96, Belgium IQ 100, Belize IQ 83, Benin IQ 69, Bhutan IQ 78, Bolivia IQ 85, Botswana IQ 72, Brazil IQ 87, Brunei IQ 92, Bulgaria IQ 93, Burkina Faso IQ 67, Burma IQ 86, Burundi IQ 70, Cambodia IQ 89, Cameroon IQ 70, Canada IQ 97, Cape Verde IQ 78, Central African Republic IQ 68, Chad IQ 72, Chile IQ 93, China IQ 100, Colombia IQ 89, Comoros IQ 79, Congo (Brazzaville) IQ 73, Congo (Zaire) IQ 65, Costa Rica IQ 91, Croatia IQ 90, Cuba IQ 85, Cyprus IQ 92, Czech Republic IQ 97, Denmark IQ 98, Djibouti IQ 68, Dominica IQ 75, Dominican Republic IQ 84, Ecuador IQ 80, Egypt IQ 83, El Salvador IQ 84, Equatorial Guinea IQ 59, Eritrea IQ 68, Estonia IQ 97, Ethiopia IQ 63, Fiji IQ 84, Finland IQ 97, France IQ 98, Gabon IQ 66, Gambia IQ 65, Georgia IQ 93, Germany IQ 102, Ghana IQ 71, Greece IQ 92, Grenada IQ 75, Guatemala IQ 79, Guinea IQ 66, Guinea-Bissau IQ 66, Guayana IQ 84, Haiti IQ 72, Honduras IQ 84, Hongkong IQ 107, Hungary IQ 99, Iceland IQ 98, India IQ 81, Indonesia IQ 89, Iran IQ 84, Iraq IQ 87, Ireland IQ 93, Israel IQ 94 (?), Italy IQ 102, Ivory Coast IQ 71, Jamaica 72, Japan IQ 105, Jordan IQ 87, Kazakhstan IQ 93, Kenya IQ 72, Kiribati IQ 84, Korea (North) IQ 104, Korea (South) IQ 106, Kuwait IQ 83, Kyrgyzstan IQ 87, Laos IQ 89, Latvia IQ 97, Lebanon IQ 86, Lesotho IQ 72, Liberia IQ 65, Libya IQ 84, Lithuania IQ 97, Luxembourg IQ 101, Macedonia IQ 93, Madagascar IQ 79, Malawi IQ 71, Malaysia iQ 92, Maldives IQ 81, Mali IQ 69, Malta IQ 95, Marshall Islands IQ 84, Mauritania IQ 74, Mauritius IQ 81, Mexico IQ 87, Micronesia IQ 84, Moldova IQ 95, Mongolia IQ 98, Morocco IQ 85, Mozambique IQ 72, Namibia IQ 72, Nepal IQ 78, Netherlands IQ 102, New Zealand IQ 100, Nicaragua IQ 84, Niger IQ 67, Nigeria IQ 67, Norway iQ 98, Oman IQ 83, Pakistan IQ 81, Panama IQ 85, Papua New Guinea IQ 84, Paraguay IQ 85, Peru IQ 90, Philippines IQ 86, Poland IQ 99, Portugal IQ 95, Puerto Rico IQ 84, Qatar IQ 78, Romania IQ 94, Russia IQ 96, Rwanda IQ 70, Samoa (Western) IQ 87, Sao Tome/Principe IQ 59, Saudi Arabia IQ 83, Senegal IQ 65, Serbia IQ 93, Seychelles IQ 81, Sierra Leone IQ 64, Singapore IQ 103, Slovakia IQ 96, Slovenia IQ 95, Solomon Islands IQ 84, Somalia IQ 84, South Africa IQ 72, Spain IQ 97, Sri Lanka IQ 81, St. Kitts and Nevis IQ 75, St. Lucia IQ 75, St. Vincent/Grenadines IQ 75, Sudan IQ 72, Suriname IQ 89, Swaziland iQ 72, Sweden IQ 101, Switzerland IQ 101, Syria IQ 87, Taiwan IQ 104, Tajikistan iQ 87, Tanzania IQ 72, Togo IQ 69, Tonga IQ 87, Trinidad and Tobago IQ 80, Tunisia IQ 84, Turkey IQ 90, Turkmenistan IQ 87, Uganda IQ 73, Ukraine IQ 96, United Arab Emirates IQ 83, United Kingdom IQ 100, United States of America IQ 98, Uruguay IQ 96, Uzbekistan IQ 87, Vanuatu IQ 84, Venezuela IQ 89, Vietnam IQ 96, Yemen IQ 83, Zambia IQ 77, Zimbabwe IQ 66 --


----------



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

I'm not sure Scotland is the smartest nation today. For the duration (and some time after) the "Edinburgh Renaissance", it likely held that title.

-----------------------------
"In summer I sleep under a white ermine cover and in winter, under sable."--Karl Lagerfeld, the one and only.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I don't like this thread's direction, if there is one. And that is the irony. Does anyone recall the series CONNECTIONS? The oddest inventions led to others that had profound and unseen impacts on the world and history. Stating one nation is smartest or did this or gave that is hubris. None of us gave anything. We are all to busy trying to TAKE something. Stalin didn't defeat fascism. Stalin survived the betrayal of a former ALLY. The Poles getting attacked by both hardly had time to wiegh National Socialism vs Soviet Communism. All nation states and peoples have had past, present and hopefully future moments of greatness and contribution.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

Originally posted by Yckmwia



> quote:How fascinating. What is the sound "general methodology" and the "close scrutiny" that have verified that the mean "IQ" of the population of, say, Sierra Leone is 64?


The methodology used in the book is explained fully. I suggest that you read the entire text, if this is interesting to you. Basically, it consists of determining mean values for various population groups and weighting those values by the population groups within the countries. As the title of the book indicates, the purpose was to establish the relationship between national mean IQ and per capita GDP.



> quote:I will freely admit that I know next to nothing about "IQ" testing, but isn't an intelligence quotient of 64 in nearly the lowest testable percentile,


No, it is not. An IQ of 64 is 2.4 standard deviations below the norm, well within the range of accurate testing.



> quote:the very tail end of the left-hand flare of the infamous "Bell Curve"?


Yes, it is to the left of the mean. As you hopefully know, the Gaussian distribution for IQ is a good fit, but there is a somewhat greater tail on the low end than the high end. This is assumed to be due to genetic and disease disorders.



> quote:
> If so, do you mean to say that "close scrutiny" has confirmed that the average inhabitant of Sierra Leone is as stupid as the very stupidest American?


Did you interpret my comments as somehow being aimed at Sierra Leone? If so, please read them again. The findings reported in IQ and the Wealth of Nations include some estimates that are based on rational expectations and are explained. You may or may not wish to accept them as accurate. They are, however, consistent with more detailed studies of similar population groups. Even scholars who have been critical of the specifics of some of the data (Earl Hunt, for example) have admitted that the numbers are not outrageous and that the economic conclusions reached are very sound. After the book was published, McDaniel showed that Lynn underestimated the regression line (IQ and national prosperity). Last year, Whetzel added a similar finding and McDaniel extended his analysis.



> quote:And 64 is the mean, which requires that "close scrutiny" will reveal that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Sierra Leoneans who boast IQs of 60, 55, and below. Now this is an eye opener, let me tell you.


Okay, so you have opened your eyes. I commend you for that. Yes, a mean value will have scores above and below it. I have not seen the standard deviation for Sierra Leone, so I cannot calculate the numbers at any specific IQ.

Perhaps you will be interested in Richard Lynn's most recent book:

Lynn Richard, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, Washington
Summit Books, Augusta, GA, 2005. ISBN 1-59368-020-1, 318 pp., US$34.95

Here is a segment of a review of that book by P. Rushton:

Book review

Most studies of race differences in intelligence have been conducted and discussed in local contexts.
In the United States they have been largely concerned with the IQs of Whites, Blacks, Hispanics,
Asians and Native American Indians. In Australia they have been concerned with the low IQ of
the Aborigines, and in New Zealand with the low IQ of the Maoris. Although a few theorists have
taken a global perspective and posited genetic and evolutionary explanations for the three macroraces
of East Asians, Europeans and Africans (Jensen, 1998; Lynn, 1991; Rushton, 1995), most
have typically explained the local differences by cultural factors such as poverty and racism.
Lynn's book extends the global perspective well beyond the three-macro races. He reviews more
than 500 published IQ studies world wide from the beginning of the twentieth century up to the
present, devoting a chapter to each of the ten â€˜â€˜genetic clustersâ€™â€™ or population groups identified by
Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza (1994), which Lynn regards as â€˜â€˜races.â€™â€™ He concludes that the
East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) have the highest mean IQ at 105. Europeans follow
with an IQ of 100. Some way below these are the Inuit or Eskimos (IQ 91), South East Asians (IQ
87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific Islanders (IQ 85), South Asians and North Africans
(IQ 84). Well below these come the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67) followed by the Australian
Aborigines (IQ 62). The lowest scoring are the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert together with
the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54).

After the 10 chapters setting out the evidence for the average IQ of each of the 10 races there
follows a chapter on the reliability and validity of the measures. These show that although additional
evidence may be required to confirm some of the racial IQ estimates, many have very high
reliability in the sense that different studies give closely similar results. For instance, East Asians
invariably obtain high IQs, not only in their own native homelands but also in Singapore, Malaysia,
Hawaii, and North America. To establish the validity of the racial IQs, Lynn shows that they
correlate highly with performance in international studies of achievement in mathematics and science.
some nations are rich and others poor. He suggests further that IQ differences explain how quickly
populations made the Neolithic transition from hunter-gatherer to settled agriculture, to building
early city states, and later the development of mature civilizations.



> quote:Not one of the many people that I've spoken to who has spent time in West Africa has thought to mention the remarkable idiocy that is, apparently, characteristic of the regional population. I guess that's part of the mokita, eh mokita?


Your words are not the issue. If you want to call people idiots, that is fine. The issue here is IQ. The measurements of IQ are sufficiently accurate as to not cause huge errors in testing. I should point out that many low IQ groups have been tested by diverse batteries of tests, a process that helps to establish whether or not there is a test related error. Are your "friends" psychometricians? If not, what kinds of observations would you expect from them that would enable you to determine the IQs of people you have not tested?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Odd, this thread is dumbing down post by post.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> I don't like this thread's direction, if there is one. And that is the irony. Does anyone recall the series CONNECTIONS? The oddest inventions led to others that had profound and unseen impacts on the world and history. Stating one nation is smartest or did this or gave that is hubris. None of us gave anything. We are all to busy trying to TAKE something. Stalin didn't defeat fascism. Stalin survived the betrayal of a former ALLY. The Poles getting attacked by both hardly had time to wiegh National Socialism vs Soviet Communism. All nation states and peoples have had past, present and hopefully future moments of greatness and contribution.


Kav, I agree completely and my comments were made with tongue firmly in cheek.

I would make one comment - _Stalin _didn't defeat fascism, the superhuman efforts of the Soviet peoples did.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


------------------


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> Originally posted by Yckmwia
> 
> ...


If you say so. As noted, I am almost entirely innocent of the relevant, ah, literature, so I will defer to your evident expertise in the matter. However, I have taken to heart your suggestion that I read the entire text of _IQ and The Wealth of Nations_ in order to get a handle on the methodology and data contained in that controversial text. You'll forgive me if I haven't yet completed the task; as yet, I have only had the chance to look into the data by which the authors conclude that the mean IQ of the population of Sierra Leone is a dismal 64. This is what I have found:



> quote:Around 1965, data for the Coloured Progressive Matrices for 22 skilled workers aged 23 years old were collected by Binnie-Dawson (1984). The average score of the sample was well below the first percentile of American 1993 standardization sample. The Sierre [sic] Leone sample is assigned an IQ 64.
> 
> Around 1964, data for 60 adults for the Coloured Progressive Matrices were collected by Berry (1966). In relation to the British standardization, their mean IQ was 64.
> 
> ...


Well, I'm convinced. There is empirical rigor, and then there is empirical _rigor_. I look forward to completing this landmark volume so that I may obtain further insight into the correlation between "national IQ" and the wealth and poverty of nations.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Mr. Richard's book at best is lazy analysis at worst its a testament to the old adage "the numbers can tell you anything you want them to". 22 skilled workers to determine the average intelligence quotient of an entire nation? Is this some kind of joke?



___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> I nominate Sweden, though I'll give my reasons after more have contributed.


Although I have already posted the answer, it was buried with other material. The answer is East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) have the highest mean IQ at 105.

The mean IQs of ********** have been thoroughly documented for decades and have been studied for substructure. The finding is that the Asian subtest profile differs from the Caucasoid subtest profile in much the same way that the male scores differs from the female scores. That means that Asians score higher on performance measures (spatial abilities, for example) and lower on verbal measures. The weighted scores are such that the ********* spatial advantage more than compensates for the verbal deficit.


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

Originally posted by Yckmwia



> quote:If you say so.


I posted sources of information and did not offer a personal observation.



> quote:As noted, I am almost entirely innocent of the relevant, ah, literature, so I will defer to your evident expertise in the matter. However, I have taken to heart your suggestion that I read the entire text of _IQ and The Wealth of Nations_ in order to get a handle on the methodology and data contained in that controversial text.


That is a commendable move. Keep in mind, as you read the book, that the purpose of the book was not to document geographical differences in intelligence, but to determine the regression line for intelligence and per capita GDP. In the context of the objective, low N data sets and even estimates of national IQs are reasonable, if the biological composition of the nation is known and the population groups in question have been studied adequately. Individual studies of various population groups are available in the literature. Some of these studies were quite extensive and some were limited. I don't think there are any instances in which the authors have attempted to overstate their findings or to hide any aspect of their methodologies.



> quote: You'll forgive me if I haven't yet completed the task; as yet, I have only had the chance to look into the data by which the authors conclude that the mean IQ of the population of Sierra Leone is a dismal 64.


Why is this country of such tremendous interest to you?



> quote:Well, I'm convinced. There is empirical rigor, and then there is empirical _rigor_. I look forward to completing this landmark volume so that I may obtain further insight into the correlation between "national IQ" and the wealth and poverty of nations.


In this instance, you have to understand where the rigor lies and where it is used as a reasonable reference point. If you have a real interest in understanding differences between population groups, Lynn's 2006 book will provide you with better information. I cited it in my prior message and quoted a piece of Rushton's review of it. You may read the details of its price and shipping charges on Lynn's web page:

where you will also find the full text of Rushton's review. I do not know if the book is ready for shipping yet.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

So the purpose of the book is to correlate intelligence with per capita GDP? Seems like a faulty premise, cultural and political structure have more to do with individual wealth than intelligence.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> So the purpose of the book is to correlate intelligence with per capita GDP? Seems like a faulty premise, cultural and political structure have more to do with individual wealth than intelligence.


Even if there was a statistically significant correlation it would not prove that the two variables were in any way related causally. They might merely be jointly correlated to some third variable, such as history...


----------



## Mr. Checks (Dec 21, 2005)

Switzerland.

On a related topic, who is the comedian who does a bit on how other countries view the US? 
He equates it to the new employee who runs into your office twice a day, every day, and yells "I'm the greatest, whoooo, whoooo, I'm the greatest."


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> So the purpose of the book is to correlate intelligence with per capita GDP? Seems like a faulty premise, cultural and political structure have more to do with individual wealth than intelligence.


If you choose to read the book, you will notice that those factors are discussed at length and that the relationship between mean national IQ and per capita GDP remains, when other variables are controlled for. Lynn's data shows an inflection point at IQ 90. Below that point, nations live in poverty, unless they are sitting on oil. Mc Daniel showed that it is better to fit the regression line to the points above 90 and to simply assume that below 90, the countries are in poverty. This process is known as truncation.

Whetzel (more recently) did a curvilinear fit to the data (truncated) and found r=.70. Then, he did a fit to the truncated data correcting for democratic presence and found r=.74.


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

Originally posted by Rich



> quote:Even if there was a statistically significant correlation it would not prove that the two variables were in any way related causally. They might merely be jointly correlated to some third variable, such as history...


Causality is difficult to prove beyond any argument. It basically boils down to the total body of evidence and reasoning. You may decide to reject anything you read. For example, there are people who do not believe that smoking is a cause of various illnesses, including cancer. Fine. Who cares?

The reason for studying the relationship between mean IQ and per capita GDP is that it has been shown (to the satisfaction of virtually all psychometric scholars) that there is a linear relationship (statistically) between income and IQ. That relationship is stronger for blacks than for whites (as I previously mentioned in a related thread) and favors blacks from the 40th percentile upwards. In the past 2 years, papers have been published by Lubinski, and his colleagues, showing that there is a difference in income, age at tenure, and number of patents granted even within the final (top) 1% of the IQ distribution. It is logical that this same relationship happens between countries. We now know that it does.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not all Jews are from Israel obviously, but assuming that they share some common genetic material, consider this:

Jews constitute 22% of Nobel Prize laureates, though they constitute less than 0.2% of the world's population. A breakdown of the specific prizes follows.

Physics: 45 prize winners, which is 26% of world total 
Chemistry: 28 prize winners, which is 19% of world total 
Physiology or Medicine: 52 prize winners, which is 29% of world total 
Economics: 21 prize winners, which is 38% of world total 
Literature: 12 prize winners, which is 12% of world total 
Peace: 9 prize winners, which is 10% of world total


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And which country has been awarded the most Nobel Prizes** per capita? Answer: Sweden*

*Actually Iceland is first, but with only a single award, it is statistically misleading.

**The founder of the Prize, Dr Alfred Nobel, was also Swedish, and the prize is awarded by the King of Sweden.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> Originally posted by Rich
> 
> ...


I can quite believe there is a statistically significant relationship between IQ and income. But what does this show? That poverty makes you stupid, or that stupidity prevents you earning a high income? Or that poverty and low income are both the result of some third factor,such as belief in magic or poor health? If a correlation cannot be interpreted usefully it's worthless.

There was a correlation between lung cancer and smoking. In itself this didn't prove the two were causally related. That smoking could cause lung cancer was established only when the mechanism of cancer induction in lung tissue was clearly demonstrated, i.e., when we knew _how _lung cancer was induced by smoking.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> I can quite believe there is a statistically significant relationship between IQ and income. But what does this show? That poverty makes you stupid, or that stupidity prevents you earning a high income? Or that poverty and low income are both the result of some third factor,such as belief in magic or poor health? If a correlation cannot be interpreted usefully it's worthless.


Thanks, I've been trying to figure out how to phrase that.

Tom


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

Originally posted by EL72



> quote:Not all Jews are from Israel obviously, but assuming that they share some common genetic material, consider this:
> 
> Jews constitute 22% of Nobel Prize laureates, though they constitute less than 0.2% of the world's population. A breakdown of the specific prizes follows.


The mean IQ for Ashkenazi Jews is on the order of 117. This is the highest IQ for any population group. Israel does not consist entirely of Ashkenazi Jews. If it did, it would have a much higher mean IQ than is the actual fact. All of the Nobel Prize winners you listed are Ashkenazi Jews.


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

Originally posted by Rich



> quote:I can quite believe there is a statistically significant relationship between IQ and income. But what does this show? That poverty makes you stupid, or that stupidity prevents you earning a high income? Or that poverty and low income are both the result of some third factor,such as belief in magic or poor health? If a correlation cannot be interpreted usefully it's worthless.


This subject has been studied in detail and from many perspectives. Causation is determined by the total body of evidence and by analysis of data sets where most of the variables are held constant. First, to answer your question, IQ causes high or low income (statistically). It does so by eliminating or qualifying people from higher paying jobs and by its obvious relationship with total years of education, which in turn relates to income for obvious reasons.

Among the ways that causation has been shown is to study siblings. It turns out that statistically the children who are from the same family and have been reared together will earn in proportion to their IQs. The smarter ones statistically do better than the others, even though they have had virtually identical rearing. The dull ones end up with lower SES, even in comparison to the SES of the parents; the smart ones do the opposite.

When children are adopted at birth, they mature into adults with no more IQ correlation to their adoptive siblings than they have to individuals selected at random. That means that the Pearson's correlation coefficient is close to zero.



> quote:There was a correlation between lung cancer and smoking.


There still is a correlation between lung cancer and smoking. There are similar correlations between other ailments and smoking.



> quote:In itself this didn't prove the two were causally related. That smoking could cause lung cancer was established only when the mechanism of cancer induction in lung tissue was clearly demonstrated, i.e., when we knew _how _lung cancer was induced by smoking.


Right. The same applies to the relationship between intelligence and income. I have offered a quick explanation of how that relationship has been studied. If you are more interested, you may learn about all of the work in this area by consulting the scientific papers on the topic. A good starting point is to read the back issues of the journal Intelligence. After that read Jensen's "The g Factor" and his related peer reviewed papers. Many of these are available through the Internet. Also read the papers written my Linda Gottfredson. In fact, if you are a novice in this field, I suggest reading her papers first, in that she has written a lot of material at a level that is intended for general consumption.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> Originally posted by Rich
> 
> ...


What do you mean by "causes (statistically)" ?

Virtually identical rearing? Siblings are not reared identically - far from it - look at any family. The mere fact of being the eldest/youngest, or a boy/girl produces large differences that condition educational attainment,life choices,etc.



> quote:In itself this didn't prove the two were causally related. That smoking could cause lung cancer was established only when the mechanism of cancer induction in lung tissue was clearly demonstrated, i.e., when we knew _how _lung cancer was induced by smoking.





> quote:Right. The same applies to the relationship between intelligence and income.


Agreed. We don't know how IQ affects income in individual cases. There are plenty of individual low achievers with high IQ and high earners with low IQ. Motivation, circumstances, belief systems, etc. have to be taken into account. So the statistical correlation cannot be interpreted.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> yadda... First, to answer your question, IQ causes high or low income (statistically). It does so by eliminating or qualifying people from higher paying jobs and by its obvious relationship with total years of education, which in turn relates to income for obvious reasons...yadda yadda


This is all well and good for a society that rotates around education and capitalism, but doesn't do much of anything in an agrarian economy, let alone hunting-gathering societies. Hence the repetition of Sierra Leone--how can its social difficulties be blamed on a number that drives Western education (and I include East Asia, where the format is the same) while means next to nothing to a subsistence farmer? Did America and England suddenly begin prodcuing smarter people after the Industrial Revolution? After all, total and relative wealth increased dramatically in the last few hundred years. You seem to be implying that Americans and Koreans suddenly became smart enough to make a microchip, and that we were simply too dumb to before.

And yeah, speaking of Koreans, if they're so smart, why can't they do better than the Kia?


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

_Originally posted by Rich_

... First, to answer your question, IQ causes high or low income (statistically). ...The smarter ones statistically do better than the others, even though they have had virtually identical rearing. 


> quote:
> What do you mean by "causes (statistically)" ?


Psychometrics is based almost entirely on statistics. The statistics tell us accurately what will happen on a group basis, but when taken to the individual level they must be understood in terms of probability, since the statistical measurements are not deterministic at the individual level. For example, if you select a group of 100 people who have IQs of 80 and compare them to another group of 100 people who have IQs of 120, the second group will almost certainly have a higher mean income than the first group (unless the sample has otherwise been grossly biased). Individuals within either group may lie far from the group mean.



> quote:Virtually identical rearing? Siblings are not reared identically - far from it - look at any family.


On a statistical basis, the elements of family income, nutrition, shelter, family values, etc. are shared by siblings who are reared together. Extensive studies of the family environment have shown that after the age of 17 there is absolutely no IQ variance that can be traced to the shared environment. This is one of the most important findings in the field of psychometrics in the past 30 years.



> quote:We don't know how IQ affects income in individual cases. There are plenty of individual low achievers with high IQ and high earners with low IQ. Motivation, circumstances, belief systems, etc. have to be taken into account.


Right. But it is easy to see the role of intelligence, as it relates to income, in some individual cases. For example, people who work in high IQ careers are paid more (statistically) than those who don't. If you see an individual who is a successful physician, you can be quite sure that his high salary is due to his having the intelligence to become a successful physician. People with IQs of 80 do not work as medical doctors. At the other extreme, you may see someone who has an IQ of 70 and notice that he is poor. It is likely that you will find that this person is not qualified to fly airplanes, design buildings, or write software. He is going to earn relatively little because so many life options are intellectually beyond his reach.


> quote:
> So the statistical correlation cannot be interpreted.


Wrong. Virtually all statistical correlations (in psychometrics) can be interpreted and understood. Sometimes there is debate over causation, but that does not mean that the correlations cannot be interpreted. The negative correlation between reaction time and intelligence, for example, is rather well understood, as is the correlation between the standard deviation of reaction time to intelligence. The same applies to scores of other important correlations.


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

_Originally posted by tiger02_



> quote:This is all well and good for a society that rotates around education and capitalism, but doesn't do much of anything in an agrarian economy, let alone hunting-gathering societies.


Nice thought, but it is inaccurate. I have heard two papers presented on the very well designed studies of hunter-gatherer tribes. If you want to study this, the lead researcher is Kim Hill. Among the findings of this research is that the individuals with the highest social standing in the tribes where those who tested highest on the two (very appropriate) tests used to measure their intelligence. The smartest males had more surviving offspring than the rest, producing a 10-20% selection advantage for cognitive ability.



> quoteid America and England suddenly begin prodcuing smarter people after the Industrial Revolution?


I suggest that you read Lynn's book and then consider whether political and developmental factors were considered or ignored. 


> quote:
> After all, total and relative wealth increased dramatically in the last few hundred years. You seem to be implying that Americans and Koreans suddenly became smart enough to make a microchip, and that we were simply too dumb to before.


I am sorry that I have not been able to explain a whole book to you in a few sentences, but I think you will find that your line of argument has been addressed by the two authors.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> Originally posted by EL72
> 
> ...


So you are saying that us Sephardim are dragging down the national average. [B)] If only you had been more accurate and thorough in your rush to prove your point.

The following Nobel Laureates are of Sephardic origin:

Baruj Benacerraf: medicine 1980

Elias Canetti: literature 1981

Claude Cohen-Tannoudji: physics 1997 (whom I have had the privilege of hearing speak and who is, as one would expect, brilliant)

Rita Levi Montalcini: medicine 1986

Salvador Luria: medicine 1969

Franco Modigliani: economics 1985

Emilio G. SegrÃ¨: physics 1959

Granted that this represents a smaller per capita number than for Ashkenazi jews but to claim that all Jewish Nobel Laureates are Ashkenazim and that this is a function of their higher IQ is misleading and false.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, but weren't they _pale_ Sephardim?

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

_Originally posted by EL72_



> quote:Granted that this represents a smaller per capita number than for Ashkenazi jews but to claim that all Jewish Nobel Laureates are Ashkenazim and that this is a function of their higher IQ is misleading and false.


Thank you. I stand corrected.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Mokita, let's say IQ is correlated with income. Women on average earn less than men, and indeed their educational attainment is on average lower than men's. Therefore women are dumber than men, is that right?


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> Mokita, let's say IQ is correlated with income. Women on average earn less than men, and indeed their educational attainment is on average lower than men's. Therefore women are dumber than men, is that right?


It may be that countries are richer *because* they have higher mean IQs (the lower IQs may be directly caused by environmental factors). However, it could also be the lack of nutrition in developmental stages that causes the IQ to be lower in poor countries. There is certainly plenty of evidence that poor nutrition causes health problems. Why is it so hard to assume that it causes problems in brain development?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> Therefore women are dumber than men, is that right?


Well....

Oh wait! She just came back in the room.........

------------------


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:If you see an individual who is a successful physician, you can be quite sure that his high salary is due to his having the intelligence to become a successful physician. People with IQs of 80 do not work as medical doctors.


1) what is the lowest IQ that any medical doctor has had?

2) how are you defining 'successful physician'? Salary, as in plastic surgeon, who makes more than a small-town physician or a lower-salaried specialist?


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> Mokita, let's say IQ is correlated with income. Women on average earn less than men, and indeed their educational attainment is on average lower than men's. Therefore women are dumber than men, is that right?





> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> Mokita, let's say IQ is correlated with income. Women on average earn less than men, and indeed their educational attainment is on average lower than men's. Therefore women are dumber than men, is that right?


The mean IQ of women, as I previously explained, is composed of factors that show a small verbal advantage. Women, however, have a larger deficit in spatial reasoning. The result is that (see the five references I have provided) the mean IQ of women falls about 5 points below the mean for men. That is 1/3 of a standard deviation and holds for both IQ and psychometric g. I was present at the delivery of four of the referenced papers. The finding of lower IQ for women has been delayed by a number of factors, but the most significant is that IQ tests have been designed to produce identical mean values for both sexes. When a test item has been tried and has produced results that favor males, it has been omitted.

The brain size difference has been known for a long time and discussed in great detail. One of the observations that was made at least a decade ago was that the smaller female brain, after correction for differences in body size, is still significantly smaller than the male brain. At one point, it was believed that females compensated for smaller brain size by having a higher neural density. This was supported by a very small (something like 5) set of microscope studies. At the time those were done, it was not known that male and female information processing is carried out in different parts of the brain, nor was it known that females use white matter in cognitive processes, while males do not (except for information transfer). This latter discovery is rather recent and was discussed at the Mind Institute last year (I attended).

For the record I have had the good fortune to meet both Richard Lynn and Paul Irwing and to hear them present these papers. This work is from some of the most qualified scholars in the field and was peer reviewed prior to publication.

Sex differences on the WISC-R in Mauritius â€¢ 
Intelligence, Volume 33, Issue 5, September-October 2005, Pages 527-533
Richard Lynn, Adrian Raine, Peter H. Venables, Sarnoff A. Mednick and Paul Irwing

Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis â€¢ 
Intelligence, Volume 32, Issue 5, September-October 2004, Pages 481-498
Richard Lynn and Paul Irwing

Sex differences on three factors identified in Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices â€¢ 
Intelligence, Volume 32, Issue 4, July-August 2004, Pages 411-424
Richard Lynn, JÃ¼ri Allik and Paul Irwing

Sex differences in general knowledge â€¢ 
Intelligence, Volume 30, Issue 1, January-February 2002, Pages 27-39
Richard Lynn, Paul Irwing and Thomas Cammock

Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: a developmental theory â€¢ 
Intelligence, Volume 27, Issue 1, February 1999, Pages 1-12
Richard Lynn


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

_Originally posted by Badrabbit_



> quote:It may be that countries are richer *because* they have higher mean IQs (the lower IQs may be directly caused by environmental factors).


The correlation between mean national IQ a and per capita GDP is sufficiently robust that several researchers have reached the same conclusion.



> quote:However, it could also be the lack of nutrition in developmental stages that causes the IQ to be lower in poor countries.


Yes, that environmental factor is real and has been well documented. The only environmental influences on intelligence are chemical and biological factors. Social factors have no effect, unless they reach the extreme of total isolation, as has been seen in a few rare cases in which children were caged.

In the US, adult IQ is heritable at about 70-80%, depending on age. The remaining variance is due to such things as hormone concentrations in the intrauterine environment, exposure to drugs, malnutrition, etc. Some of these are pronounced in the intrauterine environment and some are restricted to later encounters or conditions. The magnitude of such effects in underdeveloped countries can be seen by measuring the intelligence of individuals from those countries who have not suffered depraved environmental conditions. The 2 standard deviation advantage that US blacks hold over African blacks is partly the result of Caucasian admixture and partly the result of chemical and biological differences in the environments of the two groups.



> quote:There is certainly plenty of evidence that poor nutrition causes health problems. Why is it so hard to assume that it causes problems in brain development?


I don't understand why you think that it is "so hard to assume that it causes problems in brain development?" What prompted you to that comment?

If you read the text book I previously recommended, you will find a very extended discussion of this subject. For your benefit, I will provide the reference again:

Lynn Richard, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, Washington
Summit Books, Augusta, GA, 2005. 
ISBN 1-59368-020-1, 318 pp., US$34.95


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_



> quote:Mokita: If you see an individual who is a successful physician, you can be quite sure that his high salary is due to his having the intelligence to become a successful physician. People with IQs of 80 do not work as medical doctors.





> quote:1) what is the lowest IQ that any medical doctor has had?


How do you think anyone would find that answer? Do you think that a single instance (if found) has individual bearing in the context of a statistical science? Do you REALLY find my comment to be difficult to either understand or accept?

If you sincerely want to know the range of intelligence of physicians, I suggest that you contact a few medical schools and ask them for admission test scores. You can then, with a little research, match those to IQ scores.



> quote:2) how are you defining 'successful physician'? Salary, as in plastic surgeon, who makes more than a small-town physician or a lower-salaried specialist?


Suppose I define it as being in the top half of his peers. I fail to understand your reason for such a question. Do you think that my comment depends on whether I define it as $200,000 per year, twice that, or the top 20% of all physicians that it would change something?

If you are interested in seeing large scale statistics on income versus IQ, I suggest that you read the following paper closely:

Intelligence,Volume 29, Issue 1 , January-February 2001, Pages 45-55
Occupation and income related to psychometric g
Helmuth Nyborg and Arthur R. Jensen


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:How do you think anyone would find that answer? Do you think that a single instance (if found) has individual bearing in the context of a statistical science? Do you REALLY find my comment to be difficult to either understand or accept?
> 
> If you sincerely want to know the range of intelligence of physicians, I suggest that you contact a few medical schools and ask them for admission test scores. You can then, with a little research, match those to IQ scores.


 You made the claim, and so I was interested in any supporting evidence you might have had. 'How do you think anyone would find that answer?' is not the usual response I have to such requests.



> quote:Suppose I define it as being in the top half of his peers. I fail to understand your reason for such a question. Do you think that my comment depends on whether I define it as $200,000 per year, twice that, or the top 20% of all physicians that it would change something?


 'The top half of his peers' in what? Schooling, income, patient satisfaction?


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was actually agreeing with you and was commenting on the people who chose to argue that these statistics were invalid strictly because the conclusions are not politically correct (I admit that I am speculating on motive). I think a lot of the opposition to these statistics is caused by the fact that most of the countries with low IQ are African. I was asking a hypothetical to point out that the interpretation of these statistics as racial is not necessarily the correct one to make. Race can easily be disregarded as the main issue by focusing on the fact that nutritional environmental factors effects on brain development are well documented and are a more likely cause than genetics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## shoefetish (Jan 15, 2006)

[quote Singapore IQ 103
[/quote]

Yipee!
Took an IQ test with Stanford University and got 139.
Don't feel bright most of the time. Wait, after a few whiskies I am brighter than Las Vegas at night


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What an idiotic comment!


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But, I am sure your quoting the entire thing in order to add 4 words was "intelligent?"

Meanwhile, I would like to ask for the source of information that shows the listed names as not being Ashkenazi Jews. I read the autobiography of Modigliani and saw nothing to suggest that he was not a Ashkenazi Jew. I haven't bothered to check the others, but I would be interested in the source of information used in the claim.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

My bet would be a tie between (1) Germany and (2) Russia. Why? I think Germans and Russians produce more creative geniuses, _on average_.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you asking, or simply stating the obvious?

Are you short of screenspace or bandwidth?



> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> Meanwhile, I would like to ask for the source of information that shows the listed names as not being Ashkenazi Jews. I read the autobiography of Modigliani and saw nothing to suggest that he was not a Ashkenazi Jew. I haven't bothered to check the others, but I would be interested in the source of information used in the claim.


The Modiglianis are a well known Sephardic Italian family but see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sephardic_Jews

Whether you consider this source reliable or not, I do not wish to debate the ethnic origin each Jewish Nobel Laureate. I merely wanted to point out that your blanket statement was innacurate.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> The Modiglianis are a well known Sephardic Italian family but see:


I don't want to step in your argument but, as an economist, let me just remark that the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is not, contrary to popular belief, a "Nobel Prize".


----------



## mokita (Feb 9, 2006)

_Originally posted by EL72_


> quote:
> The Modiglianis are a well known Sephardic Italian family but see:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sephardic_Jews


Thank you. The sources I found did not contain the information.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

*Here is the tally so far, in no particular order:*

*1. British Indian Ocean Territories--------1
2. The United Kingdom of Great Britain-----1
3. Italy-----------------------------------3
4. United States of America----------------3
5. Israel----------------------------------2
6. Scotland--------------------------------2
7. Canada----------------------------------1
8. France----------------------------------1
9. Germany---------------------------------1
10.Ireland---------------------------------1
11.Russia----------------------------------1
12.Sweden----------------------------------1
13.Switzerland-----------------------------1
14.Vatican City----------------------------1*

*
There is still time to add your vote, unless you already have!*


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

The United States. Why? Becuase we're the nation with the highest productivity. We're smart enough to embrace a free market system that brings much of the intelligent people from other countries here. Be it doctors from Canada or chemists from South Korea, they come to work in the United States. 

We're also, by far, the most respected nation. Sure opinion polls might say they don't like President Bush or whatever but at the end of the day we have a massive problem with people trying to get here, not flee. If that's not respect than I don't know what is.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tmlewis_
> 
> Sure opinion polls might say they don't like President Bush or whatever but at the end of the day we have a massive problem with people trying to get here, not flee. If that's not respect than I don't know what is.


Amen. Count me in for the US of A


----------



## shoelovingSwede (Jul 28, 2005)

As I Swede I look forward to your reasons JLPWCXIII!

cheers


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by shoelovingSwede_
> 
> As I Swede I look forward to your reasons JLPWCXIII!
> 
> cheers


 I nominated Sweden because of Alfred Nobel, and you.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

Looks like Holland then Germany by this count.

Above aside, if I had to lay a bet, I would say Germany. The amount they have contributed to science and engineering considering the size of their population is staggering.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tmlewis_
> 
> The United States. Why? Becuase we're the nation with the highest productivity. We're smart enough to embrace a free market system that brings much of the intelligent people from other countries here. Be it doctors from Canada or chemists from South Korea, they come to work in the United States.
> 
> We're also, by far, the most respected nation. Sure opinion polls might say they don't like President Bush or whatever but at the end of the day we have a massive problem with people trying to get here, not flee. If that's not respect than I don't know what is.


I love this stuff!

America is great! Why? Err, because I say so.......?

Most respected nation my Aunt Fanny! Your president is a laughing stock. Your foriegn policy infuriates large sections of the planet.

Have you ever actually left the United States? Because it sure sounds like you get your ideas about the world from Fox News rather than going to have a look for yourself.

Of course America would be among the smartest nations ever - but not because Mexicans can make better money picking fruit in California.

------------------


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

_*Germany*_, by far.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

Freedonia


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> Freedonia


Islandia. Or Grand Fenwick. Or Zembla.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

> quote:Of course America would be among the smartest nations ever - but not because Mexicans can make better money picking fruit in California


I dont know about being the smartest, but the fact is anyone who is anyone who wants to study at the college level typically wants to study in the US. I will fully agree that our secondary education is terrible, but our universities are second to none, and by a enourmous margin. That some do not like our president does not change that.


----------



## Joseph Casazza (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Lord Foppington_
> 
> France!
> 
> ...


Italy. Same reasons, only better!


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Same thing - completely unsubstantiated claims about America's greatness.

Now, I am perfectly willing to accept that the university system in the USA is great, perhaps the best in the world. But not just because you say so - cite a source, provide some statistics, even reference an article.

As a product of the UK university system I can tell you that a lot of people from all over the world come to study in Britain, including boatloads of Yanks. However, I'm not going to start making wild claims about how we rank based on the fact that I once got drunk in the union bar with a German, American and New Zealander.

I would say, however, that the most famous and prestigous international scholarship is to come and study in the UK - the Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford.

------------------


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

> quote:Now, I am perfectly willing to accept that the university system in the USA is great, perhaps the best in the world. But not just because you say so - cite a source, provide some statistics, even reference an article.


Good Lord. This is like asking someone to cite a reference that the sky is blue. You can answer this yourself by looking at almost any metric. Just look at the number of foreign students populating US universities. If you still need hard numbers, my MBA class at Columbia was 30% foreign. Speaking to them when I was there, no one claimed to go there because someone forced them to.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Russia - the greatest per capita number of top chess players (though Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan are serious contenders -I'm not sure of the figures).


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can look outside and see the sky is blue. I see no similar evidence pointing to the superiority of the US university system and you don't seem to be able to provide any.

Many MBA classes here in Canada are well over 50% foriegn. Same goes in the UK. Nobody forced them to go there either.

Does that make them better university systems than the US?

One thing that the US university system seems completely incapable of doing is teaching their students that there is a big world beyond their borders and that not everything American is necessarily the best.

And I'm a little surprised that a Columbia MBA is unable to provide a better argument than "Because I say so....". You're disproving your original assertion right there.

------------------


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

> quote:And I'm a little surprised that a Columbia MBA is unable to provide a better argument than "Because I say so....". You're disproving your original assertion right there.


No - Im just not going to waste my time searching the net for data that is pretty darn self evident. Believe what you like.

Also, in your above statement, you sure are giving a lot of merit to Columbia grads with your "surprise". Are you sure you want to do that to a grad of a US university? I mean, where is your data? (Kinda funny that you contradict yourself and then speak of me disproving my own assertion....)


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty darn self evident? To whom? Not to me it isn't. Not to anyone who gives it a modicum of thought either. How much time have you spent in universities outside of the USA? Can you even name any universities outside of the USA? Have you ever in fact actually left the USA?

I suggest that you either back up your original statement with something better than "Because I say so..." or you stop making completely unfounded claims.



> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

> quote:My mistake, I'll clarify. I'm surprised that anyone who has progressed beyond about grade 8 is unable to make a better case than you are.


Seriously - didn't you make an a$$ out of yourself enough on your first attempt at condescension? I thought your superior Canadian education would have taught to cut your losses. Guess not.....


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I actually have a superior _Scottish _education.

Far, far superior judging by the quality of your responses.

------------------


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

If we are going to play the game that the 'best' is determined by the number of foreigners a place attracts, then the top two are 1) Anarctica, and 2) the Vatican.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

And high on the list, too, of course, would be the British Indian Ocean Territories [8D]


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

NewYorkBuck - I once attended school with someone like gmac. He could talk himself in a circle around anything. I'm not even going to bother entering in a discussion with him because there's no use trying to reason with a person who refuses to accept anything as given.

The person who cries "prove it" at every reasonable statement is just the man who doesn't have anything of his own to contribute. *It is not the critic who counts...*


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tmlewis_
> 
> NewYorkBuck - I once attended school with someone like gmac. He could talk himself in a circle around anything. I'm not even going to bother entering in a discussion with him because there's no use trying to reason with a person who refuses to accept anything as given.


I don't accept anything as given when it is clearly not the case - you may have noticed that there has been a certain amount of debate on this topic so it doesn't appear anybody except you two is taking anything as given.



> quote:_Originally posted by tmlewis_
> 
> The person who cries "prove it" at every reasonable statement is just the man who doesn't have anything of his own to contribute. *It is not the critic who counts...*


But the man who accepts anything he is told because it happens to fit his own world view is a fool who is easliy manipulated. I have a feeling that description applies prety well to both of you.

Have fun together. Come back when you have something more interesting to say than "I'm right because I say I am, so there!". Most people grow out of that at some point, I'm sure you will too.

------------------


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> I don't accept anything as given when it is clearly not the case - you may have noticed that there has been a certain amount of debate on this topic so it doesn't appear anybody except you two is taking anything as given.


No, I have not noticed significant debate on the topic you, NYB, and I are discussing: whether the US has the best colleges in the world. Sure, there's been discussion about the smartest country but but right now the specific discussion between you and me is about your discussion with NYB. Obviously a lack of discussion doesn't make NYB's statement automatically true. Common sense takes care of that.



> quote:
> But the man who accepts anything he is told because it happens to fit his own world view is a fool who is easliy manipulated. I have a feeling that description applies prety well to both of you.
> 
> Have fun together. Come back when you have something more interesting to say than "I'm right because I say I am, so there!". Most people grow out of that at some point, I'm sure you will too.


The man who *doesn't* accept anything he is told because it happens to *not* fit his own world view is a fool who is easily manipulated. I have a feeling that description applies pretty well to you.

Have fun by yourself. Come back when you have something to add to the discussion other than "You're wrong because I say so, so there!" Most people grow out of that at some point, I'm sure you will too.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Ah, common sense! The last resort of the person who has nothing whatsoever to back up their argument! Pray tell, how does common sense inform you that the US university system is so superior?

But let's see - you accept anything you are told that, I don't know, makes you feel great to be an American. Doesn't matter to you if it is true or not. Hhhmm.

I started out with an open mind but my current position has been reached through an observation of you and the other fellow's complete inability to make your point, thereby demonstrating that the system which you think is so wonderful is actually failing its students rather badly, at least in the case of the New York chap. I have no idea if you are claiming a university education - one would rather hope not based on what you have demonstrated here.

I have to imagine that other American university students and/or grads are of a higher intellectual quality. Of course, I know this to be the case - makes me wonder what hapened to you two.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Oh, and imitation truly is the sincerest form of flattery, even when carried out in a supremely childish fashion.

Thanks!

------------------


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

Haha gmac, you silly curmudgeon...

Your ridiculous whining has gone on long enough so I'm going to go ahead and appease you with a ranking that clearly shows the US has the world's best universities. 

I actually went so far as to find a ranking from outside the US...in fact, so you wouldn't cry about pro-US bias I got one from the PRC:




Perhaps you would like to thoroughly review the ranking's criteria, data sources, and so on:



I bet if you try hard enough you can find something out of which to squeeze a criticism.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Well done laddie!

I've had a look at your source and it seems fine - I'm sure one could quibble here or there but I won't.

I hope you have learned something from this - be prepared to back up statements with facts and saying "Because I say so!" or "It's common sense" is inadequate in any form of debate. 

You should always be preapred to challenge any kind of received wisdom and get answers for yourself.

Good job, even if it took you some time to get there.

------------------


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

> quote:Good job, even if it took you some time to get there.


No - see we were already there for some time. I just wouldnt waste my time searching for data for something that I already knew was true as I would be no better off after wasting the time to uncover the specific references. Conversely, you were the one questioning the validity of our claims. If it bothered you that much, you should have done your own research. As far as me proving the claim to you, I really dont care if you go through life ignorant.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tmlewis_
> 
> Haha gmac, you silly curmudgeon...
> 
> ...


 One can easily see on the methodology page that the criteria they are using are profoundly flawed:

The 'Quality of Education' category consists SOLELY of numbers of alumni who've received a Nobel Prize or Fields Medal. Is this really the only valid measurement of a university's 'quality of education'? And if we're going to stick with the awards criteria alone, what about generations of university graduates who were successful, but who lived and died before these prizes were created? Or who are alive now, but have either declined one of those awards, or haven't yet received one for work already published? The reputation of a university is gauged by momentum and legacy as well as cherry-picked modern facts.

By the way, if you DO accept their methodology as sound, then you've also got to accept that Sweden (and not the USA) is the most intelligent nation - since Sweden has the most Nobel Prize winners per capita (USA is only 11th).


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This does rather beg the question of why you would enter the debate when you are unwilling to back up your claims to the other parties to that debate?



> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_
> 
> Conversely, you were the one questioning the validity of our claims. If it bothered you that much, you should have done your own research. As far as me proving the claim to you, I really dont care if you go through life ignorant.


Of course I questioned the validity of your claim, much as I would question the validity of any claim made with no supporting evidence.

TMlewis has at least learned that it is important to back what he says with facts. You have learned nothing as far as I can tell.

------------------


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> I hope you have learned something from this - be prepared to back up statements with facts and saying "Because I say so!" or "It's common sense" is inadequate in any form of debate.


Oh man gmac...your condescension is surpassed only by how out of touch you are. Perhaps in light of the evidence that overwhelmingly ranked the US as number one you should accept that it really was obvious all along. Perhaps, gasp, you were mistaken. (Oh but of course not. With your holier-than-thou manner I should have naturally assume you to be infallible)

As far as JLP's complaint, I'm not even going to bother with anymore of this bickering. If you actually plan on contibuting to your own thread, and don't like the study I found, then come up with a counter example.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

Hey, I know, let's argue about something that can't be proven!

I think the smartest nation must be Sierra Leone, because as far as I know the citizens of that country have had the good sense to stay out of this debate.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> Hey, I know, let's argue about something that can't be proven!
> 
> I think the smartest nation must be Sierra Leone, because as far as I know the citizens of that country have had the good sense to stay out of this debate.


Ha ha!

Not bad bosthist, not bad! I'll join the good people of Sierra Leone and jump out of this one while I'm ahead.

------------------


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:As far as JLP's complaint, I'm not even going to bother with anymore of this bickering. If you actually plan on contibuting to your own thread, and don't like the study I found, then come up with a counter example.


 Ha!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see you beat me to my laughter by about a minute. At least I am not the only one who finds mirth in any attempts to discuss the issues intelligently with that character.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

> quote:Of course I questioned the validity of your claim, much as I would question the validity of any claim made with no supporting evidence.


Please provide supporting evidence for this claim.....



> quote:You have learned nothing as far as I can tell.


No, the one thing I have learned in this exchange is I couldn't care less about what you think. I have found this rediculous exchange with you about a blatently obvious point a complete waste of time. Post whatever you like in response (as Im sure you will) with the knowledge that I will not return to this thread. The one mistake I have made is not doing so earlier.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

NewYorkBuck, you have learned the same thing that I have learned in other threads.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> 
> NewYorkBuck, you have learned the same thing that I have learned in other threads.


You didn't learn anything either?

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_
> 
> No, the one thing I have learned in this exchange is I couldn't care less about what you think. I have found this rediculous (sic) exchange with you about a blatently obvious point a complete waste of time.


Oh well, at least you learned something!



> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_Post whatever you like in response (as Im sure you will) with the knowledge that I will not return to this thread. The one mistake I have made is not doing so earlier.


We'll see.........

------------------


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Well done, JLPWCXIII, for starting this controversial thread - most entertaining! How do you measure smartness? Is it the same as talent? If per capita GDP is a measure of smartness than the US is No.1. Yet in a recent study based on a large set of criteria Canada ranked top as the "best country to live in". The longest life expectancy is in San Marino, followed by Japan - the US ranks below France. The country that has won the most olympic medals per capita is Lichtenstein, followed by Norway, Finland and Hungary. The US has the world's largest prison population. The suicide rate in the US is three times that of Brazil.
I'd lay a small bet that the country with the largest proportion of foreign university students is the Lebanon. For per capita musicians and musicianship Germany wins. Italy makes the most beautiful cars. France is the world leader in civil nuclear power technology (despite the recent Chinese Westinghouse deal - Westinghouse is owned by Toshiba) and has the best fighter aircraft (the Rafale). The country that has enjoyed the longest political stability must be the UK. The greatest empire ever was the British Empire. Etc. etc.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rich,

The Rafale is impressive but it is not the best fighter - and since it is very unlikely to ever see combat we may never know its full potential. And I would say Rome trumped the greatness of the British Empire but we could argue about that for days.

Karl


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> Well done, JLPWCXIII, for starting this controversial thread - most entertaining! How do you measure smartness? Is it the same as talent? If per capita GDP is a measure of smartness than the US is No.1. Yet in a recent study based on a large set of criteria Canada ranked top as the "best country to live in". The longest life expectancy is in San Marino, followed by Japan - the US ranks below France. The country that has won the most olympic medals per capita is Lichtenstein, followed by Norway, Finland and Hungary. The US has the world's largest prison population. The suicide rate in the US is three times that of Brazil.
> I'd lay a small bet that the country with the largest proportion of foreign university students is the Lebanon. For per capita musicians and musicianship Germany wins. Italy makes the most beautiful cars. France is the world leader in civil nuclear power technology (despite the recent Chinese Westinghouse deal - Westinghouse is owned by Toshiba) and has the best fighter aircraft (the Rafale). The country that has enjoyed the longest political stability must be the UK. The greatest empire ever was the British Empire. Etc. etc.


 Alright, another vote for France. [}] [8D]


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> Well done, JLPWCXIII, for starting this controversial thread - most entertaining! How do you measure smartness? Is it the same as talent? If per capita GDP is a measure of smartness than the US is No.1. Yet in a recent study based on a large set of criteria Canada ranked top as the "best country to live in". The longest life expectancy is in San Marino, followed by Japan - the US ranks below France. The country that has won the most olympic medals per capita is Lichtenstein, followed by Norway, Finland and Hungary. The US has the world's largest prison population. The suicide rate in the US is three times that of Brazil.
> I'd lay a small bet that the country with the largest proportion of foreign university students is the Lebanon. For per capita musicians and musicianship Germany wins. Italy makes the most beautiful cars. France is the world leader in civil nuclear power technology (despite the recent Chinese Westinghouse deal - Westinghouse is owned by Toshiba) and has the best fighter aircraft (the Rafale). The country that has enjoyed the longest political stability must be the UK. The greatest empire ever was the British Empire. Etc. etc.


Yes, yes, Rich, these points are all well and good. However, the United States may lay claim to the deep-fried Twinkie. End of discussion.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

My vote goes to the USA. The USA draws more smart people from around the world than any other country. The people come because the USA has:
A) the best universities and 
B) the most economic opportunity. 

I think these are the 2 reasons so many important breakthroughs have occurred in the USA during the last century. 

As for the reasons why conditions A and B exist? I think the US owes that to a handful of smart fellows in the late 1700s. They had enough vision to craft documents that made it difficult for a government to get in the way of smarter people and screw things up too bad.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Alright PennGlock, we have seen that under certain criteria the US may have best universities but what makes you say it provides the most economic opportunity? Based on what? How do you measure economic opportunity? Have you considered other parts of the world such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, etc where economic opportunity has been plentiful.

What breakthroughs that occurred in the USA are you talking about?

We seem to have a lot of young American gentlemen who have a great problem in seeing beyond the tips of their noses.

------------------


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

I dont have a problem seeing beyond the tip of my nose, and Im not taking anything away from other fine nations. Im just casting my vote for America, because it's top-shelf in many categories. With such broad criteria as "Smartest," is it really that absurd that some people can find justification to nominate the USA?

As far as economic opportunity, I believe America offers more than any other nation, including the ones you named. There are relatively few governmental impediments to starting a business venture in America, and there are more avenues to funding available here than in any other country. In America, you also have the the biggest market imaginable for almost any product of service you decide to offer. If your goal is to improve yourself financially, in which countries will you find more favorable odds than the USA?

What breakthroughs have occured in America, is that a serious question? Off the top of my head, 3 areas that have greatly improved our quality of life are transportation, communications/computing, and medicine. Many nations have contributed to progress in these areas, and Im sure you're full of Canadian examples, but most of the progress has been made inside American borders. That's just...indisputable.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by PennGlock_
> 
> I dont have a problem seeing beyond the tip of my nose, and Im not taking anything away from other fine nations. Im just casting my vote for America, because it's top-shelf in many categories. With such broad criteria as "Smartest," is it really that absurd that some people can find justification to nominate the USA?


Of course there is justification for nominating the USA - you just didn't provide any. I can say say the things you said about the USA about any country in the world - just as valid as you making claims about America _without any sort of back-up_



> quote:_Originally posted by PennGlock_As far as economic opportunity, I believe America offers more than any other nation, including the ones you named. There are relatively few governmental impediments to starting a business venture in America, and there are more avenues to funding available here than in any other country. In America, you also have the the biggest market imaginable for almost any product of service you decide to offer. If your goal is to improve yourself financially, in which countries will you find more favorable odds than the USA?


Can you compare the governmental impediments to starting a business in the USA to those in other countries? Many European countries actually offer incentives to starting businesses. In many third world countries there are literally no impediments - you just start up and go.

How do you define the "biggest market imaginable"? I imagine the Chinese, Indian and EU markets to be be bigger than the US - so do a lot of multinational organizations judging by the lengths they will go to to do business there. See Google agreeing to censorship in China (that's called an example, you may wish to try one sometime).



> quote:_Originally posted by PennGlock_What breakthroughs have occured in America, is that a serious question? Off the top of my head, 3 areas that have greatly improved our quality of life are transportation, communications/computing, and medicine. Many nations have contributed to progress in these areas, and Im sure you're full of Canadian examples, but most of the progress has been made inside American borders. That's just...indisputable.


It is this kind of fuzzy thinking that weakens your case.

"but most of the progress has been made inside American borders. That's just...indisputable. "

No, it is completely disputable and any sentient person knows that.

Transportation - I'll maybe give that to you with the Wright brothers and Henry Ford.

Medicine - wrong. Penicillin, probably the greatest medical advance of the last century was discovered by a Scot in London. The first organ transplants (cornea) were carried out in Austria in 1905. The first heart transplant in South Africa in 1967. The first test tube baby was in the UK in 1978. No doubt there have been many major advances in the US but you will see how all of a sudden it is no longer "indisputable" when you actually think about it.

Communication/Computing - before the internet (American, I'll grant you that) the two greatest, in my view, advances in mass and personal communications had been the television and the telephone, both invented by Scotsmen*.

So, while your original contention might be correct, you are doing a very poor job of proving it. And you have an extremely strange idea of "indisputable"

* I know that there are many with claim to inventing TV, we talked about that already on this thread - succes has many fathers while failure is an orphan

------------------


----------



## msh14 (Nov 11, 2005)

I'm so glad AAAC has it's own self-appointed fact overseer.

Think about all those hopeless threads where people didn't have to source every sentence. Thank god we'll never return to that savagery.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by msh14_
> 
> I'm so glad AAAC has it's own self-appointed fact overseer.
> 
> Think about all those hopeless threads where people didn't have to source every sentence. Thank god we'll never return to that savagery.


Sarcasm?

The lowest form of wit indeed.

------------------


----------



## msh14 (Nov 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Sarcasm?
> 
> The lowest form of wit indeed.


Haha, repetative unconstructive criticism, the lowest form of discussion.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Mr Gmac,

You forget - many people believe that America is the smartest nation by default, since it produced EIB radio.

You can visit their store here: https://members.premiereinteractive.com/store/


----------



## msh14 (Nov 11, 2005)

Um JLP, given the new forum rules gmac has introduced, you're going to have to provide a source backing up the statement "many people believe that America is the smartest nation by default, since it produced EIB radio" otherwise we simply can not be bothered to entertain it.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by msh14_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed.

That is why I offer only constructive criticism - I'm trying to help my little American friends see that there is a world beyond their current imagination.

You don't seem to like that. Want to tell us why?

------------------


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Can you compare the governmental impediments to starting a business in the USA to those in other countries? Many European countries actually offer incentives to starting businesses. In many third world countries there are literally no impediments - you just start up and go.
> 
> How do you define the "biggest market imaginable"? I imagine the Chinese, Indian and EU markets to be be bigger than the US - so do a lot of multinational organizations judging by the lengths they will go to to do business there. See Google agreeing to censorship in China (that's called an example, you may wish to try one sometime).


As a fellow Canadian, I find your repeated derision of other posts and your condescending attitude toward Americans embarassing.

Your unfortunate stereotyping of Americans as exceptionalists who don't see "beyond the tip of their noses" or never travel outside of the US betrays a uniquely Canadian attitude that is quite deplorable. Rather than truly debate or understand the other's viewpoint, you seem perfectly content belittling others in a mindless quest to appease your ego (or insecurities, pick one).

At any rate, let's get back to your inane search for proof that the US offers more financial rewards to entrepreneurs or is a larger economy. Defining the biggest market is easy and there is only one universally accepted measure: GDP. China = $8.1 trillion; India = $3.6; USA = $12.4 trillion (no contest; Canada = $1 trillion btw so we're not doing as well per capita as our Southern neignbours fwiw).

Your "imagination" that China and India are larger markets (buttressed by the equally foolish point that multinationals want to do business there) is best kept for your delusional fantasies of innate superiority rather than an informed discussion. If you are going to criticize others for failing to adequately back up their claims, you need to do better than weak anecdotal evidence gleaned from a newspaper article about Google you read last week.

As far as financial rewards or impediements to entrepreneurship are concerned, I teach and research in this area and can provide you with countless references to support the assertion that rates of entrepreneurship are far higher in the US than elsewhere. Perhaps a more pedestrian measure of financial rewards for you to digest is the recent list of Forbes billionaires. Nearly half of the worldâ€™s billionaires live in the United States (home to less than 5% the world's population). These 365 people have a combined net worth of $1.2 trillion. Other measures of capital markets, private funding... bear out the same conclusion: the US is a more entrepreneurial society, in part because the financial rewards are greater there.

Whether or not this has anything to do with the original question of the smartest nation is an entirely different matter. I simply object to your constant belittling of others with no other motive than to assert your supposed moral or intellectual superiority over Americans (a sad fact of life in Canada today I admit).


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I'm not Canadian, sport.

My condecension is reserved for those who refuse to think before making comments, Americans or otherwise.

I won't bother returning your insults.

Happy St Patricks day.[]

------------------


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

Hey guys, you can't fight derision with derision.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Yeah, I did think that was mildly ironic.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> *Rather than truly debate or understand the other's viewpoint*, you seem perfectly content belittling others in a mindless quest to appease your ego (or insecurities, pick one).


The insults I will let slide but the comment above is inaccurate.

I may have been a bit rude but I was simply trying to get the other posters to make informed and lucid comments backed up with a few facts, much as you did in between the insults, thereby raising the standard of debate.

I would have thought that as a teacher/prof you would have wanted to see a little support to their arguments. You'll have noted that I didn't disagree with their assertions about the United States, I merely questioned them.

------------------


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> I may have been a bit rude but I was simply trying to get the other posters to make informed and lucid comments backed up with a few facts, much as you did in between the insults, thereby raising the standard of debate.
> 
> I would have thought that as a teacher/prof you would have wanted to see a little support to their arguments. You'll have noted that I didn't disagree with their assertions about the United States, I merely questioned them.


Why be rude at all? First, it's hardly becoming of someone posting on a gentlemen's menswear forum. Second, and more importantly, if your objective were truly to generate informed and well-supported replies, then surely you would agree that there are more effective ways of engaging one's interlocutor than hurling insults. It reminds me of parents who beat their children and defend their actions by saying that they were only trying to teach them a lesson.

As a professor and academic, I most certainly want to see claims supported with empirical evidence and well thought out arguments. I know however that this cannot be achieved by demeaning others or questioning their assertions in a rude way. I think you know this too, which is why I don't buy your excuse for rudeness and still question your motives.

I am not in favour of derisive comments but simply replied in kind so that we can perhaps tone down this ridiculous exchange.

p.s. don't call me sport, little friend... I am neither and don't appreciate yet another subtle way in which you attempt to demean others

Happy St. Patricks day to you too!


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Couple of points to be made here.

Firstly, you think that you flaming me for being rude to others gives you the moral high ground? Think again. You waded in with invective a lot worse than anyting I said to the other posters. As you said, "it's hardly becoming of someone posting on a gentlemen's menswear forum."

Secondly, if you consider this to be a ridiculous exchange then why join it? I have found it be on occasion quite interesting? Why are you here if not to simply be rude to me?

Finally, I wasn't making excuses for being rude and I don't really care whether you buy my reasons or not. I am not here to gain your approval.

p.s. you can call me "little friend" all you like

------------------


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

seh hello to my leedle fren


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

That was pretty funny!!!  (took me a second mind you...)

------------------


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Firstly, you think that you flaming me for being rude to others gives you the moral high ground?


Dear little friend,

Yes. Your attacks were unprovoked and unjustified. Mine was in retaliation and hoping to end the insults.



> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Secondly, if you consider this to be a ridiculous exchange then why join it? I have found it be on occasion quite interesting? Why are you here if not to simply be rude to me?


The tone of the exchange, which unfortunately obscures what is a potentially interesting debate, is what I find ridiculous. I do find the topic interesting and posted here earlier, before the nastiness began.



> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Finally, I wasn't making excuses for being rude...
> 
> p.s. you can call me "little friend" all you like


_"I may have been a bit rude but I was simply trying to get the other posters to make informed and lucid comments backed up with a few facts..."_

Reads like an excuse to me.

Cheers little friend!


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Uh-huh........

Nice work on that one - any more bright ideas?



> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> Cheers little friend!


I know! Keep calling me "little friend"!

I couldn't possibly care less but it does serve to make you sound like a complete fool who has a lot of concerns about his own masculinity!

Why don't you call me a girlyman too? That will make you sound _even tougher_! 

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

You're an odd one EL72.

Your best plan for stopping what you percieve to be rudeness is to be many times ruder than anybody else? Are you being deliberately stupid?

Then you complain about me calling you "sport" - a fairly innocous term I think most would agree. You then immediately start to use what you seem to consider to be a demeaning reference to me as your "little friend".

You're a mixed up kid, that's for sure. But I guess you know a lot about GDP so maybe it's OK........

------------------


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

And the winner is, as I thought: Germany! At least according to one researcher:

"A new European league of IQ scores has ranked the British in eighth place, well above the French, who were 19th. According to Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster, Britons have an average IQ of 100. The French scored 94. But it is not all good news. *Top of the table were the Germans, with an IQ of 107*. The British were also beaten by the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Italy, Austria and Switzerland."


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

I'm just going to say.....

Ferarri

Giorgio Armani

Godfather - Movie

You guess which country I'm voting for! Capisce?

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> And the winner is, as I thought: Germany! At least according to one researcher:
> 
> "A new European league of IQ scores has ranked the British in eighth place, well above the French, who were 19th. According to Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster, Britons have an average IQ of 100. The French scored 94. But it is not all good news. *Top of the table were the Germans, with an IQ of 107*. The British were also beaten by the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Italy, Austria and Switzerland."


Do a Google search for Richard Lynn and decide if you want to take him seriously or not.


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

America is by far and away, irrefutably and undeniably Number One.

It produced Americans ...


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

The U.S. is not included but, it gives a run-down on Europe, allegedly (hint: it's Germany)

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

It's a toss-up between Freedonia and the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> Do a Google search for Richard Lynn and decide if you want to take him seriously or not.


Who cares? Honestly, both his alleged political views and the sort of people with whom he allegedly associates are irrelevant. _Ad hominem_ critique is just a convenient way of avoiding facing the question at hand. His research stands on its own merits.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was my point. His research doesn't stand on its own merits in some (most? all?) cases. Because of this, his political views do matter because they may have influenced both his methodology and his conclusions. Suggesting that someone do a Google search and look at Richard Lynn's body of work is hardly an _ad hominem_ critique, rather it is a _caveat emptor_.

I do find it interesting that you immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm criticizing his political views rather than his research.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, simply pointing out the kind of people he hangs out with, or his political views, isn't a refutation of his research. It's an _ad hominem_ approach. It's a cheap way to avoid the issue.


----------

