Chinese outstanding academic performance not because of hard working, its more to do with genetic

[52051]

On average Chinese has the highest GCSE score in the UK, espeically in numerical/quantitive subject.

Source:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dian-pupils-grades-GCSE-British-children.html
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chinese-teenagers-smartest-pupils-uk-gypsy-children-struggle-1433575

Is such performance come from the well-known yet little proved hard-working-ship of Chinese?

According to the recent studies in the UK, it seems that is not the case:

Cognitive abilities test (CAT) is a mental test assese the cognitive capabilites of people.

Whilst GCSE is standard academic test in UK.

The Chinese CAT test score in the UK agree almost perfectly with their GCSE academic score, whilst it seems that indians, on average, their academic performance vastly outperformance their mental capabilities.

So congrats to these indians, it seems that they work much harder or cheat much harder in school to make it not so far far behind the Chinese as their mental capabilities suggests.

CAT and its predicted GCSE score:

Source:
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/glassessment.pdf

 

[Actuary]

Yes, on average. Average people aren't who take countries to glory. The geniuses do that.

The tail-ends are populated by whites.

 

[52051]

Yes, on average. Average people aren't who take countries to glory. The geniuses do that.

The tail-ends are populated by whites.

It seems that you dont know how to read the table, which may excused by your relatively low congative capabilites:

Chinese has a mean quanatitve reasoning score of 112 for non-verb with a SD of 14.5, and 110 for non-verb reasoning with a SD of 13.7.

Comparing to the white british, they get a mean of 100-101 with a SD of 14.2.

So, yes, Chinese not only has vastly higher mean congative abilities, but also vastly more genius as well, racial difference is real.

 

[nang2]

Good God. That was the main thesis of G. Stanley Hall back in 1880s, whose theories, though spawning the whole progressive education movement, are now mostly considered as crackpots.

 

[Actuary]

It seems that you dont know how to read the table, which may excused by your relatively low congative capabilites:

Chinese has a mean quanatitve reasoning score of 112 for non-verb with a SD of 14.5, and 110 for verb reasoning with a SD of 13.7.

Comparing to the white british, they get a mean of 100-101 with a SD of 14.2.

So, yes, Chinese not only has vastly higher mean congative abilities, but also vastly more genius as well, racial difference is real.

This is for children, where IQ scores are more easily susceptible to prepping due to the lack of complexity in the questions.

What matters is adult IQ, and the Chinese adults have an average IQ of about 90-95. Final adult intelligence is rate of maturity X length of maturity. It could be that Asians have a lower length of maturity than whites.

 

[52051]

This is for children, where IQ scores are more easily susceptible to prepping due to the lack of complexity in the questions.

What matters is adult IQ, and the Chinese adults have an average IQ of about 90-95. Final adult intelligence is rate of maturity X length of maturity. It could be that Asians have a lower length of maturity than whites.

First of all, what matter isnt adult IQ since we all know Chinese's IQ score grow comparing to the Americans on very accerlating scale. For instance, in 1990s IQ test in China get a mean of 97-99 whilst in 2005 it become 103.4 with a SD of 17.7.

The unusual high SD of Chinese IQ in 2005 suggests: (1) Chinese has way way more genius than you, much more than the mean IQ score would suggests (2) Most likely Chinese IQ in 2005 have not reach its full potential thus many lags could contribute a large SD as well.

And with a sample size of 23 it seems that you tried too hard to prove as if you are something, how about an sample size of 38448:

By 2005, Chinese has an average IQ of 103-105 instead of 90-95, with a IQ potential of 110 when fully developed, your low congative capability caught you again.

Lynn give an assesement of 105 for Chinese in his 2006's book:

http://www.gentlecynic.net/Articles/IQ and Global Inequality.pdf

 

[HariPrasad]

Hummmmmmmmmmmmm .


https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/amp....14/apr/15/chinese-students-in-uk-poor-results

May be it is genetic .

 

[nang2]

With a sample size of 23 it seems that you tried too hard to prove as if you are something, how about an sample size of 38448:

By 2005, Chinese has an average IQ of 103-105 instead of 90-95, with a IQ potential of 110 when fully developed, your low congative capability caught you again.

Lynn give an assesement of 105 for Chinese in his 2006's book:

http://www.gentlecynic.net/Articles/IQ and Global Inequality.pdf

I would take IQ scores with a grain of salt. The very definition of IQ score depends on the average at the time of testing. In another word, the average score is always 100. Today's average is IQ 100 and the average of 50 years old is also IQ 100, though today people may be much smarter.

 

[52051]

I would take IQ scores with a grain of salt. The very definition of IQ score depends on the average at the time of testing. In another word, the average score is always 100. Today's average is IQ 100 and the average of 50 years old is also IQ 100, though today people may be much smarter.

His score is simply from an ancient test for culural-revoluation or before gen Chinese, which IQ obviously get comprised by living conditions in the past.

The thing is, CAT is a different congative ability assements than IQ test, they sidely proved one another.

 

[MultaniGuy]

I don't agree with the title. it's not like Chinese are some super-geniuses and everybody else are idiots.

Chinese are more hardworking than other peoples. That is why they are this far. This is why they are the world's largest economy.

When Muslims were ruling South Asia as the Mughals they produced some well educated scholarly people.

 

[Actuary]

With a sample size of 23 it seems that you tried too hard to prove as if you are something, how about an sample size of 38448:

By 2005, Chinese has an average IQ of 103-105 instead of 90-95, with a IQ potential of 110 when fully developed, your low congative capability caught you again.

Lynn give an assesement of 105 for Chinese in his 2006's book:

That 23 sample size is for Japanese only. Chinese had a sample size of 31. While the bias does converge to 0 as the sample size increases, you don't need a humongous sample size to get accurate results. A sample size of 31 would still make a very good estimate.

Let's assume that the null hypothesis is that Chinese have an average IQ of 105 and a standard deviation of 15.
Let variable Y be the average of the 31 randomly selected Chinese we used in our sample. If Xi represents each Chinese individual, then:

Y = (X1 + X2 +... + X31)/31

Averages have the sample expected value as each individual random variable, so E(Y) = E(X)

Var(Y) = (1/31)^2 * 31 * Var(X)

Since Var(X) = 225, Var(Y) = 2.694

Since the study found that adult Chinese have an average IQ of 95, then (95 - 105) / 1.64134 = -6.09258289. That's our z-score.

o(-6.09258289) ~ 1 - o(6.09258289).

The negative of this z-score is so high it's not in any normal distribution table - They only go up to 3.49. A Z-score higher than six is near 1, but not equal to it.

This means that if you are correct and the Chinese do have an average IQ of 105, then there was almost a non-existent chance that the average IQ found in the study was 95 or lower.

Increasing our sample size just decreases our variance and would have lowered the probability that we've seen an average IQ of 95. It's not really a significant figure to fret about. You're talking about the difference between .00001% probability and .000001% probability.
Once again, you prove my point that Chinese and other Asians just know how to memorize and regurgitate, without ever understanding the meaning behind math and science. Let me know if this is too much for you to handle.

Also, that picture you linked me, again, is about kids. Chinese adult IQ is lower than adult white IQ.

 

[jetray]

I would take IQ scores with a grain of salt. The very definition of IQ score depends on the average at the time of testing. In another word, the average score is always 100. Today's average is IQ 100 and the average of 50 years old is also IQ 100, though today people may be much smarter.

IQ scores are nothing but pure BS. It has no clear consistent scientific backing but a glorified conclusion from a misleading application of statistical data.
These scores & tests are as good as comparing a monkey and fish on ground & water.

 

[52051]

That 23 sample size is for Japanese only. Chinese had a sample size of 31. While the bias does converge to 0 as the sample size increases, you don't need a humongous sample size to get accurate results. A sample size of 31 would still make a very good estimate.

Let's assume that the null hypothesis is that Chinese have an average IQ of 105 and a standard deviation of 15.
Let variable Y be the average of the 31 randomly selected Chinese we used in our sample. If Xi represents each Chinese individual, then:

Y = (X1 + X2 +... + X31)/31

Averages have the sample expected value as each individual random variable, so E(Y) = E(X)

Var(Y) = (1/31)^2 * 31 * Var(X)

Since Var(X) = 225, Var(Y) = 2.694

Since the study found that adult Chinese have an average IQ of 95, then (95 - 105) / 2.694 = -3.711952487. That's our z-score.

o(-3.711952487) ~ 1 - o(3.712) = 1 - .9989 = .0011.

This means that if you are correct and the Chinese do have an average IQ of 105, then there was only a .1% chance that the average IQ was 95 or lower.

Increasing our sample size just decreases our variance and would have lowered the probability that we've seen an average IQ of 95. It's not really a significant figure to fret about.

Also, that picture you linked me, again, is about kids. Chinese adult IQ is lower than whites.

It seems that your congative capability caught you again:

What I have pointed out is, the test score of 95 for old-gen Chinese american in your tiny test is not really disagree with the results from 1990era Chinese IQ studies on pupils, they are both in the high 90 region.

And btw, we all know most adult Chinese americans come to your countries dont speak even a complete english sentence and live all their lives in China town so their IQ score obviously get comprised in an english IQ test.

And modern IQ tests like RPM have the same set questions for adult as it is for childern, they just rescaling the score to standardize them.

The reason why adult IQ tests are not as realiable as pupils is because despite of the same test set, education and living background play more much weights in IQ for adults due to their enviorment than pupils.

 

[Actuary]

It seems that your congative capability caught you again:

What I have pointed out is, the test score of 95 for old-gen Chinese american in your tiny test is not really disagree with the results from 1990era Chinese IQ studies on pupils, they are both in the high 90 region.

And btw, we all know most adult Chinese americans come to your countries dont speak even a complete english sentence and live all their lives in China town so their IQ score obviously get comprised in an english IQ test.

And modern IQ tests like RPM have the same set questions for adult as it is for childern, they just rescaling the score to standardize them.

The reason why adult IQ tests are not as realiable as pupils is because despite of the same test set, education and living background play more much weights in IQ for adults due to their enviorment than pupils.

Children's IQ tests are watered down. The scaling is done with people in the same age as the test-taker, but the test itself is easier that the ones given to adults. The reason for this is to get a wide range of raw scores instead of having a non-normal distribution of scores scattered at the bottom like a lognormal or pareto distribution. This would skew the raw to scale conversion, where getting a couple questions right randomly would increase your IQ dramatically.

Also, your last statement is completely incorrect. IQ scores becomes more aligned to genetics as you age due to the higher complexity of questions found in adult IQ tests. This is why Asian prep and cram schools play no role in adult IQ.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

What is new? Another time. Another people. Let success get to their heads. In the late 1800s it was the British, in the early 1930s the German thought they were special, for a while we had American's rolling. Now another success story is about to get interpreted as intrinsic superiority.