• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Erased.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
That list is complete BS. IQ is a gaussian with mean 100 by definition. The mean of that curve is nowhere near 100. If you weighed the countries by population and produced a graph, you should still get something that's close to a normal curve. You calculate the mean of this curve, and you define that to be 100. Everything else is based relative to that one mark.
 
Originally posted by: JLGatsby

You're very wrong. I think you have Forbes confused with Fortune.

I say that because Fortune highballs their 40 under 40 net worth estimates.

While Forbes in general, lowballs worth estimates. Ask Donald Trump. Every single year he's been on the list, he's complained he's worth more than Forbes estimates.

Also, most of the people on the list, like Bill Gates, hold their wealth in publically traded stock, so their networth can be calculated very accurately.

Since Forbes only has access to a portion of the information to determine net worth, I would say most billionares are worth MORE than what is listed in Forbes.

The billionaries suing Forbes, are only doing so to have their names removed because of privacy concerns. A bunch of them sued in the late 1980s in a big public case and lost. The judge found the public has a right to know this information.
Click to expand...

I meant Forbes. You must be Karnac or something with a huge crystal ball the way you seem to dictate to other posters what they really mean.

Gates is no where near the richest in the world.

You don't hear much about people like the Rothschilds, and the banking establishers...nor many royalties that are still sitting on HUGE fotunes.

You also seem to be talking only of those in america.

 
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: JLGatsby

You're very wrong. I think you have Forbes confused with Fortune.

I say that because Fortune highballs their 40 under 40 net worth estimates.

While Forbes in general, lowballs worth estimates. Ask Donald Trump. Every single year he's been on the list, he's complained he's worth more than Forbes estimates.

Also, most of the people on the list, like Bill Gates, hold their wealth in publically traded stock, so their networth can be calculated very accurately.

Since Forbes only has access to a portion of the information to determine net worth, I would say most billionares are worth MORE than what is listed in Forbes.

The billionaries suing Forbes, are only doing so to have their names removed because of privacy concerns. A bunch of them sued in the late 1980s in a big public case and lost. The judge found the public has a right to know this information.
Click to expand...

I meant Forbes. You must be Karnac or something with a huge crystal ball the way you seem to dictate to other posters what they really mean.

Gates is no where near the richest in the world.

You don't hear much about people like the Rothschilds, and the banking establishers...nor many royalties that are still sitting on HUGE fotunes.

You also seem to be talking only of those in america.
Click to expand...

Again, you're wrong.

Gates is infact the richest.

Forbes lists wealth of royalty and Gates is still ahead of them all.

But it's unfair to compare someone like the Saudi royal family, whom Forbes lists at around $20 billion (a guy living 2 blocks from me is worth twice as much as that), because much of their assets must go to support their country.

Forbes also lists the wealth of the entire Rothschild family at only 1 billion.

You're still living in 1905.
 
Originally posted by: LadyBuggy
A lot of the reason for the lower IQs in the poorer countries (besides not as much education) is that IQ tests are incredibly biased in favor of western countries and practical knowledge for people in a lot of these countries doesn't include thep problem solving stuff that's on the test. IQ scores aren't really a good measure of their intelligence.
Click to expand...


Dead wrong.

5 out of the top 5 on that list are Eastern countries. So much for your claim of Western bias.
 
Originally posted by: Mo0o
More socioeconomic factors than genetics. BUt still interesting nontheless
Click to expand...

Wrong. North Korea and South Korea have vastly different socioeconomic situations, yet since they're so close to each other (and used to be the same country) it stands to reason that their genetics are almost identical. Hence, the very close IQ scores.

Also, other nearby nations have similar IQ scores since the genetics will be similar. If you look at how the numbers vary by region, you'd clearly see that it's mostly a genetic factor.
 
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

I'm not saying there aren't intelligence differences though. But I would blame it on nutrition and education rather than genetics. Studies have shown that vitamin supplements increase kids' IQs a few points, and music and art education also increase IQ. Think about what it's like being a child living in Africa. You probably live on a limited diet of corn and maybe beans, and your education is severely limited.
Click to expand...

Education does not change IQ. IQ is inate, knowledge is learned.

Also, transplants from other countries still have the IQ similar to where they're from, even though they're now living in a different society with different food options. In other words, fat people of Korean descent who eat at McDonald's every day still have a much higher average IQ than fat people of Sierra Leonian descent who eat the same thing.

 
Originally posted by: G Wizard
no wonder people claim IQ tests to be racially biased.
Click to expand...

Either that or different groups of people evolved in different conditions, causing their evolutionary traits to be different. Bah, but what is a little science worth when confronted with The Race Card (tm)?
 
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: G Wizard
no wonder people claim IQ tests to be racially biased.
Click to expand...

Either that or different groups of people evolved in different conditions, causing their evolutionary traits to be different. Bah, but what is a little science worth when confronted with The Race Card (tm)?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go there.

I got labeled as a racist on another forum for talking about differences in IQ/athleticism and race. It doesn't matter that there's science behind the studies, it's not politically correct. I'm not sure about the source of the OP for this case...

Apparently, there's no difference in:

1. recognizing that certain races as a whole have different abilities based on science
2. judging people based on their race and suppressing their rights. Or inferring that certain traits overall of certain races infers some sort of superiority/inferiority.

 
Originally posted by: JLGatsby
IQ means nothing. Social intelligence, motivation, and a culture of entrepreneurship is what makes a society successful.

60% of the world's billionaires live in America, now tell me who the smartest are.
Click to expand...

What does intelligence have to do with success? It's a weak correlation at best.

As for the 60%...no, that tells you who has friendly tax laws.
 
Originally posted by: Legend
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: G Wizard
no wonder people claim IQ tests to be racially biased.
Click to expand...

Either that or different groups of people evolved in different conditions, causing their evolutionary traits to be different. Bah, but what is a little science worth when confronted with The Race Card (tm)?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go there.

I got labeled as a racist on another forum for talking about differences in IQ/athleticism and race. It doesn't matter that there's science behind the studies, it's not politically correct. I'm not sure about the source of the OP for this case...

Apparently, there's no difference in:

1. recognizing that certain races as a whole have different abilities based on science
2. judging people based on their race and suppressing their rights. Or inferring that certain traits overall of certain races infers some sort of superiority/inferiority.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Originally posted by: JLGatsby
IQ means nothing. Social intelligence, motivation, and a culture of entrepreneurship is what makes a society successful.

60% of the world's billionaires live in America, now tell me who the smartest are.
Click to expand...

yes and thats where the most opportunity is...and IQ tests are very askewed.
 
After the last election, I could have sworn the United States dropped about 25 points. Could be that the list is out of date.
 
Originally posted by: JLGatsby
IQ means nothing. Social intelligence, motivation, and a culture of entrepreneurship is what makes a society successful.

60% of the world's billionaires live in America, now tell me who the smartest are.
Click to expand...

being born into being a billionaire qualifies as smart?
 
Originally posted by: silverpig
That list is complete BS. IQ is a gaussian with mean 100 by definition. The mean of that curve is nowhere near 100. If you weighed the countries by population and produced a graph, you should still get something that's close to a normal curve. You calculate the mean of this curve, and you define that to be 100. Everything else is based relative to that one mark.
Click to expand...


🙂 Hey, I was going to say that.

I find it pretty scary that with an average of 64 in Sierra Leone, the half of the population below the average (assuming a normal distribution) must need the other half to feed them.
 
First, I think the statistics are completely BS

But, if they weren't, and IQ is to an extent heriditary. Well, you draw the conclusions (racism)
Those conclusions wouldn't be very popular.

However, someone should inform Wiki that the information they have is very very flawed.

 
Umm. How do those statistics work?

The average IQ is, by definition, 100 for each population group - that means each indiviudal country and/or culture.
 
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: silverpig
That list is complete BS. IQ is a gaussian with mean 100 by definition. The mean of that curve is nowhere near 100. If you weighed the countries by population and produced a graph, you should still get something that's close to a normal curve. You calculate the mean of this curve, and you define that to be 100. Everything else is based relative to that one mark.
Click to expand...


🙂 Hey, I was going to say that.

I find it pretty scary that with an average of 64 in Sierra Leone, the half of the population below the average (assuming a normal distribution) must need the other half to feed them.
Click to expand...

Central limit theorem FTW 😛
 
Originally posted by: JLGatsby
IQ means nothing. Social intelligence, motivation, and a culture of entrepreneurship is what makes a society successful.

60% of the world's billionaires live in America, now tell me who the smartest are.
Click to expand...

So one has to be a billionaire to be the smartest?

I think the greatest indicator of intelligence is an open mind and ability to co-exist peaceably with one's surroundings.
The sense to avoid stepping in front of a speeding car is a good indicator, too.
Not flying around in ultralight aircraft is a good indicator, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top