Therere countless threads in the web on the related Q&A. I dont have time and patience to argue much with deniers who will use every logical fallacies in the book , tell every lies they come across, and repeat them over and over until the cow goes home
but a quickie:
1. 90 level is about the minimum to maintain a prosperous modern industrialised society.
2. almost ANY internationally recognised standardised IQ test can do. for one of the heavy g-loaded tests, e.g. look for Raven Matrix.
3. the whole IQ things are highly correlated with the actual invention level, throughout the entire human history, in every corner of the world.
Finally, wtf? Are you messing up things again? It is YOU who only need to raise a single counter example, as the simplest way like what I suggest, in order to disprove my point , saving both your time and mine. Yet you cant.
Keep up lying.
eddieInUK,
What you wrote, first appear being true stereotypes, represent some of the typical mis-information put forward by race-deniers, promoted heavily in the main stream media by the Marxists and Socialists. In a way you are, even though quite innocently, helping these Marxists spreading this mis-information and stereotypes on the overseas Chinese.
--IQ can be very accurately AND objectively measured, while the Marxist so-called "EQ" no, not even remotely.
-- there is no EQ thing. So called EQ, backed by the whole EQ industry consisted of some d@#khead sociologists and social workers of NGOs, was invented by the Marxists in order to
draw even between higher IQers and lowers ones in some way, because its not PC to say that some people, on average, are better on whatever in public. For them the higher IQ people somehow magically
must have low EQ. If one has low IQ, he must have high EQ, at least according to stereotypes. See? Everyone is the same? Yet by claiming some ppl having lower EQ than others, they themselves are using double standard they dispise when talking about IQ. But since they are Marxists, theyre always correct using any fallacy.
-- On this India talk more Chinese talk less claim, probably there are some truth in it, e.g. Chinese defence forum/threads here are much less takative than the Indian counterparts, but for drastically different reasons you propose. Some of the main reasons at different levels that I can immediately relate to are :
i) higher IQ people, on average and logically, need much less time and words to
effectively convey the
same ideas clearly amongst themselves than lower IQ people would do. To give a simple and a bit extreme example, there have been largely no words or grammars in African languages & tribal tones in pre-modern world having meanings of the concepts of Tomorrow or doing sth at the exactly the same time tomorrow. Hence it would take them lots of explanations to communicate that level of understandings, whereas in East Asia or Europe, for example, its matter of a few precise words. This is a stereotypical impression with some truth in it.
ii) its a question of natural self-defence mechanism in essence IMO. Talking more, or equivalently more socialised, gives weaker ones higher chance for survival. See, both higher IQers and lower IQers have survived natural selection by deploying different mechanisms: higher IQ ppl use brain and strategies more to survive, hence relying on group defence formed largely by more inter-person communications ( or talking, : Emotions EQ) and physical traits (e.g.Western Afros are explosively faster runners) far less than the lower IQers. A good analogy on difference mechanisms here is in the animal world, for instance, lions relatively live on far fewer group numbers than Zebras do. And certainly tigers are much less talkative than birds, because surprise attack is important for the survival of tigers that hunt, while for the latter pre-warnings (talkative) and mutual-help ( socialise) are more important.
With time, the aforementioned different mechanisms of natural survival of both high IQers and low ones have evolved into different levels of things like average testosterone level, physical difference adapted to the local environment, group temperament, average number of offspring, group/tribal culture, identity etc, etc
certainly reinforce the IQ further.
So all in all:
talk more =//= more efficient talk,
more talk(more socialising) =//= higher so called EQ ,
and Higher IQ =//= lower so-called "EQ". In fact in the absolute term, Han Chinese average Verbal IQ (if that is some form of measurement of quality of "talk") is FAR HIGHER than that of Indians.
An advantage for Indians in teh Western world, though, is that Hindi , and other Indian languages, are closer to European language family than East Asian languages are, thus for them is more natural to pick up English, assisted by 300 yrs colonisation - this fascilitates communications.
( also, I suspect that Indian lying have profound genetic basis given aforementioned reasons, aself-protection machanism at work)
IQ deniers (Marxists) deny different IQ while magically admit different "EQ" and insist "low IQ" ppl must have high "EQ". They mix "EQ" with "talkative" and so-called "emotions" amd "music(read:gangster rap) talents" etc etc., using every trick in the book to deliberately confuse the mass.
You are full of logical fallacies.
But then again, what do you expect from a Chinese member eh?
that is NOT what I wrote. Where I wrote that? that is what you claim. 
it looks like that you are so familiar with that number that i wonder if it is saved in your hard drive?
