Highest Average IQ by Country (2016 update) | List 25

[EndangeredSpecies]

There is no way for Taiwan to displace pre-existing companies that are already entrenched. It is impossible to take over the entire supply chain.

There is no 'supply Chain' in EDA/design tools. Its... just software mostly.

Did you not see the infographic below? Embraer assembles other countries' technologies.

Taiwan's TSMC is superior to Intel's technology.

The two situations are not the same.

TSMC does not assemble other people's technologies. It adds value.

TSMC does not have its own design tools. Does it? It still uses design tools from American companies. If it is A-OK for TSMC to leverage American technology for its business, why is it not A-OK for Embear to develop aircrafts based on Jet Engines from around the world. Why is TSMC considered a hallmark of industrialization while Embaer is not?

BTW, the biggest mass-produced CPU design is ARM. ARM is essentially a british product. Its very much arguable that TSMC is 'merely producing' British chips. Just as Embear is 'merely' producing airplanes based on foreign technologies.

 

[Martian2]

There is no 'supply Chain' in EDA/design tools. Its... just software mostly.


TSMC does not have its own design tools. Does it? It still uses design tools from American companies. If it is A-OK for TSMC to leverage American technology for its business, why is it not A-OK for Embear to develop aircrafts based on Jet Engines from around the world.

BTW, the biggest mass-produced CPU design is ARM. ARM is essentially a british product. Its very much arguable that TSMC is 'merely producing' British chips. Just as Embear is 'merely' producing airplanes based on foreign technologies.

I've already answered your question. I will say it only one last time. If you annoy me again, I will put you on my ignore list.

TSMC adds value to its products through the application of process-technology trade secrets to produce a 7nm logic chip, which is denser than an Intel 10nm logic chip.

Embraer adds very little value to its product, because it is only assembly. There are no trade secrets involved with Embraer.

If you can't understand that distinction then I can't explain it any further.

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

TSMC adds value to its product.

Embraer adds very little value to its product, because it is only assembly.

If you can't understand that distinction then I can't explain it any further.

Thats funny.

Building an aeroplane with components from in-house and around the world is NOT value addition as it is just 'assembly'!
Building semiconductor chips with design tools and design from around the world is value addition and not merely 'fabrication'.

BTW, in real terms, even repackaging is considered value addition.

I guess you have to be Taiwanese or White to add value, otherwise you cann't! Thats a really interesting concept.

BTW, I do remember sometimes back you were harping similarly about nominal GDP as the only measure of size of economy and rest not! That was one fun thread. We all know you only believe in something when it fits your agenda. Cya!

@Nilgiri Remember the fun times?

 

[Martian2]

Thats funny.

Building an aeroplane with components from in-house and around the world is NOT value addition as it is just 'assembly'!
Building semiconductor chips with design tools and design from around the world is value addition and not merely 'fabrication'.

BTW, in real terms, even repackaging is considered value addition.

I guess you have to be Taiwanese or White to add value, otherwise you cann't! Thats a really interesting concept.

BTW, I do remember sometimes back you were harping similarly about nominal GDP as the only measure of size of economy and rest not! That was one fun thread. We all know you only believe in something when it fits your agenda. Cya!

Okay, I'll put you on my ignore list. I'm not interested in debating an issue to the death.

There's nothing special about building a plane.

Brazil's Embraer built a civilian plane using foreign components. Big deal.

Taiwan built a jet fighter 29 years ago.

In 1989, Taiwan built its Indigenous Defence Fighter.

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

There's nothing special about building a plane.

I don't need to say anything anymore.

Living proof that blind-faith makes you blind.

 

[gambit]

@gambit
Can you please answer me, but no offense.
USA is most popular destination for great minds and scientists and yet it has only 98 IQ.
Russia is one of countries with biggest brain drain, but with 97 IQ, what is the problem? Hillibilies/rednecks? or bad education system?

This is exactly why what Marty is doing is so intellectually dishonest and outright racist.

The socio-political-economic situation in the US is the most conducive to entrepreneurship, of which it means hard work and persistence usually succeeds where genius fails. Many of the great achievers did not migrate to the US but borne here. Plus, the US is geographically large so you are going to have a diversity of 'average IQ'. Population centers like NYC or Silicon Valley, what do you speculate the 'average IQ' of those locations might be?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/americas-smartest-cities

Then when you try to compose the 'average IQ' of the US, of course you are going to get a lower value than from the population centers. This is why Lynn and Vanhanen were so criticized.

Another dishonest thing that Marty did was he picked the qualifiers for himself the qualifiers that make a people 'high IQ'. If your country cannot make a computer chip, your people is stupid. To put bluntly. Marty is too chickenshit to say it, so I will say it for how the Chinese in this forum feels about your people: Can your country make a computer chip? If not, your people is genetically inferior to the Chinese.

So to all the non-Chinese who sucks up to them in this forum, how does it feel to know that they are in silent contempt for you every time you join them in criticizing US?

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

This is exactly why what Marty is doing is so intellectually dishonest and outright racist.

The socio-political-economic situation in the US is the most conducive to entrepreneurship, of which it means hard work and persistence usually succeeds where genius fails. Many of the great achievers did not migrate to the US but borne here. Plus, the US is geographically large so you are going to have a diversity of 'average IQ'. Population centers like NYC or Silicon Valley, what do you speculate the 'average IQ' of those locations might be?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/americas-smartest-cities

Then when you try to compose the 'average IQ' of the US, of course you are going to get a lower value than from the population centers. This is why Lynn and Vanhanen were so criticized.

Another dishonest thing that Marty did was he picked the qualifiers for himself the qualifiers that make a people 'high IQ'. If your country cannot make a computer chip, your people is stupid. To put bluntly. Marty is too chickenshit to say it, so I will say it for how the Chinese in this forum feels about your people: Can your country make a computer chip? If not, your people is genetically inferior to the Chinese.

So to all the non-Chinese who sucks up to them in this forum, how does it feel to know that they are in silent contempt for you every time you join them in criticizing US?

I have always wondered if intelligence or rather capacity to success can be measured by single number.

 

[gambit]

I have always wondered if intelligence or rather capacity to success can be measured by single number.

The IQ number is the most popular attempt throughout history. We had everything from skull size to height to penis length, and now we have the IQ value.

Here are a couple of examples about skull size...

Does not matter...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...doesnt-correlate-with-intelligence-180947627/

Does matter...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/sep/28/research.health

So after all these yrs of scientific advancements, we are still confused about skull size and intelligence. You pick which.

Then at one point, white scientists declared that the larger the penis, the dumber the people, which put blacks at the lowest rung of the human evolutionary ladder. How convenient when whites oppressed blacks at just about every imaginable ways, worst of all -- slavery. So how do we reconcile black astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson with his higher than average intelligence and if he is also more well endowed 'down there' than the rest of us? Is the man smart or stupid?

The IQ value is just another attempt by humans -- writ large -- to quantify our intelligence at the easiest form of consumption as possible. Generally, we want to see and do things as easy as possible and we balk at difficulties.

Make no mistake, this is a racist thread regardless of how the Chinese members of this forum want to couch it.

 

[Cybernetics]

The IQ number is the most popular attempt throughout history. We had everything from skull size to height to penis length, and now we have the IQ value.

Here are a couple of examples about skull size...

Does not matter...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...doesnt-correlate-with-intelligence-180947627/

Does matter...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/sep/28/research.health

So after all these yrs of scientific advancements, we are still confused about skull size and intelligence. You pick which.

Then at one point, white scientists declared that the larger the penis, the dumber the people, which put blacks at the lowest rung of the human evolutionary ladder. How convenient when whites oppressed blacks at just about every imaginable ways, worst of all -- slavery. So how do we reconcile black astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson with his higher than average intelligence and if he is also more well endowed 'down there' than the rest of us? Is the man smart or stupid?

The IQ value is just another attempt by humans -- writ large -- to quantify our intelligence at the easiest form of consumption as possible. Generally, we want to see and do things as easy as possible and we balk at difficulties.

Make no mistake, this is a racist thread regardless of how the Chinese members of this forum want to couch it.

Not that I don't agree with some of your previous points but with the example of Niel deGrasse Tyson he represents a very narrow sample. Martian is referring to a population average in his arguments. Within that population we will see a wide distribution of data points.

It is very difficult to make any open discussions about IQ topics in the West and most people don't want to be bothered by such topics and I think that should be respected.

Some of IQ related concepts and sinocentrism that you have talked about before stemmed from contact with Western institutions. Based on personal experience: some professors of European ancestry who studied Chinese history/culture have told their ethnic Chinese students (some were oblivious/uninterested to their own culture) how it is the best culture and among other things. They go as far as cultivating the love of Chinese culture within their students who previously had little care for it (the professors are more hardcore than Chinese themselves). Among many professional circles people would perpetuate the idea of Chinese intelligence, it is almost never Chinese themselves doing this (it can be a bit shameful declaring such things). A old British investment banker told me how during the 80's he thought China was going to take over the world in the future(of course with hyperbole) based on intelligence and cultural potential (China was economically inconsequential during the 80's). His pre-conceived notions were reinforced with visits during the 80s and 90s to the Mainland.

I was in a small town in New England and a random old white man strolling in the park with his wife came up to me and started a conversation in Mandarin. Apparently he was an American exec who just came back from his position in China and eventually brought up the idea that I should cherish my culture and the idea of hardworking and intelligence among the qualities of Chinese.

These interactions set certain expectations for you and plant seeds in your head, even if you previously lacked such ambitions you will be pressured to work hard in fulfilling such roles. I don't know if my experiences or my peer's experiences are an exception.

 

[TaiShang]

Not that I don't agree with some of your previous points but with the example of Niel deGrasse Tyson he represents a very narrow sample. Martian is referring to a population average in his arguments. Within that population we will see a wide distribution of data points.

It is very difficult to make any open discussions about IQ topics in the West and most people don't want to be bothered by such topics and I think that should be respected.

Some of IQ related concepts and sinocentrism that you have talked about before stemmed from contact with Western institutions. Based on personal experience: some professors of European ancestry who studied Chinese history/culture have told their ethnic Chinese students (who were oblivious/uninterested to their own culture) how it is the best culture and among other things. They go as far as cultivating the love of Chinese culture within their students who previously had little care for it (the professors are more hardcore than Chinese themselves). Among many professional circles people would perpetuate the idea of Chinese intelligence, it is almost never Chinese themselves doing this. A old British investment banker told me how during the 80's he thought China was going to take over the world in the future(of course with hyperbole) based on intelligence and cultural potential (China was economically inconsequential during the 80's). His pre-conceived notions were reinforced with visits during the 80s and 90s to the Mainland.

I was in a small town in New England and a random old white man strolling in the park with his wife came up to me and started a conversation in Mandarin. Apparently he was an American exec who just came back from his position in China and eventually brought up the idea that I should cherish my culture and the idea of hardworking and intelligence among the qualities of Chinese.

These interactions set certain expectations for you and plant seeds in your head, even if you previously lacked such ambitions you will be pressured to work hard in fulfilling such roles. I don't know if my experiences or my peer's experiences are an exception.

Interesting, indeed. China rising theories are Western creations. It was a US journalist who coined the term Beijing Consensus almost three decades ago. And he outlandishly compared it with Washington Consensus.

For China, what matters is getting things done. This is the greatest reason, culture and intelligence. Unlike the West, China's rise is not due to colonization or taking advantage of a world destroyed in a world war.

China's rise (if any) is a feat against all odds. That's what makes it so impressive to me.

 

[gambit]

Not that I don't agree with some of your previous points but with the example of Niel deGrasse Tyson he represents a very narrow sample. Martian is referring to a population average in his arguments. Within that population we will see a wide distribution of data points.

Your entire post is essentially a tacit admission that the current desire to form a singular data point to illustrate intelligence at the individual and group level, along with the associated methodologies, are suspect.

Regarding the 'hard work' praise. If you are struggling to get by, then by default you are a 'hard worker', and if you are solving problems while you work, then by default you have sufficient intelligence to -- solve problems.

I hate to sound like a callous person, which I am not, but the 'hard worker' and 'intelligent' praises do not tell me much about the person or even the entire group. If you take a look at China's past scientific achievements that goes back literally thousands of yrs, it begs the question of 'What happened?' Were the Chinese less smart back then? Less 'hard working'?

How do you measure/quantify if a programmer is a 'hard worker' and 'intelligent'? If he is a senior member, I will assign difficult projects that will lower his productivity due to the time it requires for him to solve problems. Do I use productivity to measure him as to how 'hard' he works? That would be unfair.

For process engineering, I will assign easier projects to new hires who just graduated from school while more difficult projects will go to more experience engineers. To me, all of them are hard workers and intelligent people.

The reality is that when you deny a person or the entire group the necessary environment for the person and/or the group to exercise the basic human impulses of curiosity, imagination, and hard work, of course you will see across the board lower achievements in any field. That is what happened to the Chinese people when Mao decided to experiment with Marxism. Mao denied the people the necessary environment that existed to the Chinese people long before when they invented all those scientific wonders. Mao slaughtered the elites of Chinese society, the educated few who do their best to distill what they know to the next generation of Chinese. So what else do the Chinese people have except to work as hard as possible with as much intelligence they could muster up just to survive?

And now, when the shackles of Marxism were removed and the Chinese people essentially exploded by way of their hard work and intelligence, it is clear 'evident' of innate Chinese superiority in intelligence?

I do not deny that there is a genetic component of one's innate intelligence, but social history have proved that nurture seems to have a much greater influence on the person and the group as a whole regarding individual and collective intelligence. Parents nurture the individual. Governments nurture the people. For the latter, the Chinese government failed the Chinese people.

 

[seesonic]

Not that I don't agree with some of your previous points but with the example of Niel deGrasse Tyson he represents a very narrow sample. Martian is referring to a population average in his arguments. Within that population we will see a wide distribution of data points.

It is very difficult to make any open discussions about IQ topics in the West and most people don't want to be bothered by such topics and I think that should be respected.

Some of IQ related concepts and sinocentrism that you have talked about before stemmed from contact with Western institutions. Based on personal experience: some professors of European ancestry who studied Chinese history/culture have told their ethnic Chinese students (some were oblivious/uninterested to their own culture) how it is the best culture and among other things. They go as far as cultivating the love of Chinese culture within their students who previously had little care for it (the professors are more hardcore than Chinese themselves). Among many professional circles people would perpetuate the idea of Chinese intelligence, it is almost never Chinese themselves doing this (it can be a bit shameful declaring such things). A old British investment banker told me how during the 80's he thought China was going to take over the world in the future(of course with hyperbole) based on intelligence and cultural potential (China was economically inconsequential during the 80's). His pre-conceived notions were reinforced with visits during the 80s and 90s to the Mainland.

I was in a small town in New England and a random old white man strolling in the park with his wife came up to me and started a conversation in Mandarin. Apparently he was an American exec who just came back from his position in China and eventually brought up the idea that I should cherish my culture and the idea of hardworking and intelligence among the qualities of Chinese.

These interactions set certain expectations for you and plant seeds in your head, even if you previously lacked such ambitions you will be pressured to work hard in fulfilling such roles. I don't know if my experiences or my peer's experiences are an exception.

No point responding to an Indian whose ideal American middle income household comes from watching hollywood drama such as breaking bad

A single city in China built more skyscrapers last year than the US and Australia combined

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Governments nurture the people. For the latter, the Chinese government failed the Chinese people.

An example of tender, loving "nurture", 'Murican style:

As much as I mock Indians for delusional ideas, 'Murica is still #1 here by a looooong shot. USA! USA!

 

[gambit]

An example of tender, loving "nurture", 'Murican style:

And what were the Chinese style? Do we need to find out?

 

[Figaro]

The list of the 25 countries with the highest average IQ is interesting for its correlation with industrialized countries.

The only exception is Mongolia, because their population of three million is too small to industrialize. Small European countries can rely on the European Union for technological and financial help. Mongolia has no equivalent access to technological assistance.

The critical unanswered question is: How important is average IQ to the industrialization of a country?

China has a high average IQ and its industrialization was never in doubt.

However, can a lower average IQ country industrialize? That has not happened yet in the world. Will it happen in our lifetime? I don't know.
----------

25 Countries With The Highest Average IQ | List 25 (January 31, 2018)

1. Hong Kong 107 (average IQ)
2. South Korea 106
3. Japan 105
4. Taiwan 104
5. Singapore 103
6. Austria 102
7. Germany 102
8. Italy 102
9. Netherlands 102
10. Sweden 101
11. Switzerland 101
12. Belgium 100
13. China 100
14. New Zealand 100
15. United Kingdom 100
16. Hungary 99
17. Poland 99
18. Spain 99
19. Australia 98
20. Denmark 98
21. France 98
22. Mongolia 98
23. Norway 98
24. United States 98
25. Canada 97

I really doubt the validity and application of IQ tests. Many times, they are horribly inaccurate or outright rigged. If they did this IQ test on China 100 years ago, I guarantee the results won't be good. As for the Europeans, it's more or less the same.

@Martian2

According to Charles Murray : "Human Accomplishments, The pursuit of excellence in arts and science from 1400 to 1999"

Russia contributed to 14% of all science inovations in the world from 1400 to 1999, and more then 15 % of all arts.

Chinese contribution in last 600 years is less then 1%. Russia was co founders of our modern age, China was outsider.

@gambit
Can you please answer me, but no offense.
USA is most popular destination for great minds and scientists and yet it has only 98 IQ.
Russia is one of countries with biggest brain drain, but with 97 IQ, what is the problem? Hillibilies/rednecks? or bad education system?

Really biased info here. The guy you mentioned is merely cherry picking time lines and data points here. You can say Russia was a founder of the “modern world” ... but who founded the modern world’s foundation? It was largely China. China gave us the compass, gunpowder, paper, and the printing press, just to list out a few. Where was Russia during this time period????? Just because the USSR had a few decades worth of space declaration does not make it more innovative than China. If you want to say Russia had more innovation for the past 600 years, maybe you should also mention the vice versa for the past millennia ... regarding your question about American IQs, you should know that IQ studies are full of nonsense.