45 9

Why does the worldwide IQ distribution appear to match racial IQ differences seen in multi-racial countries?

Since the majority of the countries of the world have majority of one racial / ancestral group, racism seems unlikely a primary driver of these differences. This would suggest that racial IQ differences have a biological component. However, one alternative explanation is that the IQ of people living in these countries today is affected by events of 80+ years ago. What do you think?

IQ differences between countries is due to...

  • 16 votes
  • 2 votes
  • 113 votes
  • 93 votes
  • 24 votes
Charter 6 Feb 4
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Intelligence is something that we recognize, but which is incredibly difficult to quantify.

Stupidity, on the other hand...

Stupid is as stupid does. Even a most intelligent person can act like an idiot.

@Naomi Ah...I can finally respond. Don't know what was going on w/ the 'replies."

If we consider what stupidity is, the intelligent person "falls down," an easy thing to do.

The stupid person, on the other hand, does not aspire upward. They're "just fine, thank you very much..."

@Terence57 Depending on what stupidity is, I guess. Its definition is broad.

@Naomi Ohhh...the possibilities are endless!

Average stupidity should be measured and published.


This chart is way off. It can't be right. Canada is rated much to high. I should know becuz I is one.
We're somewhere around 25. The PM is even lower. Many of us felt sorry for him so we elected him twice.

You are just displaying your gentil Canadian nature.


I voted: historical events, biological/genetic differences, cultural differences and something else [updated my vote]. I hope my explanation is accurate, detailed and clear enough.

Aside from criticism of IQ tests, even though I include focus on linguistic skills and mathematics, here are why I voted those options:

What I mean by historical events: Things like human migrations, invasions and subsequent movement and merger in populations (thus having diverse populations in a country and interracial groups as well), determination if borders of countries, weather events, natural disasters, famines, historical political events and ideologies...

Biological/genetic differences: Duh! The same mechanisms of evolution and geographical factors and historical events (point above, which doesn't include what a leftist might expect: historical racism, slavery and colonization by the evil white man; as those are relatively recent even compared to invasions of civilizations of antiquity) that determine traits, including cognitive functions and abilities, and differences between species, except that in the case of differences between species it's more significant due to being much further back in time and different evolutionary paths, unlike being so recent with the same species. I'd also refer to the differences in IQ between sexes and how it's not really much different but has differences between cognitive functions/tasks (such spatial and verbal). And while on the point of IQ differences between sexes, I'd refer to that difference in IQ being shrinking (and that's maybe more relevant to the next point). I'd also refer to the book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt (University of Chicago economist/professor) and Stephen J. Dubner (New York Times journalist) and its chapter on how almost negligible parenting is on children education and academic performance and how it's mostly genetics (not socioeconomic status, not school peers!) and how the most part of the parents influence on that is done by the moment of conception. Now apply that to much long ancestral lines!

Cultural differences: Which is the result of the points above! And that includes many aspects and maybe the most prominent (and directly relevant to IQ tests) are language differences, education differences and quality, religion and level of religiosity, and lifestyle and how much one is burdened in day to day life. And I shall elaborate more on each.

Something else: Well, as others mentioned,, and if we're trying to be as much accurate as possible, other factors such as nutrition may have an impact on IQ. Also, dehydration also may have an impact the size of brain structures, IQ and cognitive functions such as visio-spatial processing and motor skills (not to mention other adverse effects such as possible migraines and effect on mood) which can explain why traffic accidents increase during Ramadan! (which also relates to the above point of culture). So maybe the IQ scores of Muslim-majority countries would be different, even if not by much, between Ramadan and other months!

So, elaborating on the cultural differences..

Language: IQ tests focus on linguistic skills and mathematics. If the IQ test is in English , there would be of course differences between a native speaker and someone who knows English as a second or a third language! And there would be differences across age or proficiency in English (I'm saying age as a young novice student learning English would typically be less proficient in the language, so there is usually correlation between the 2 here), unless that's accounted for in the test somehow! I remember back when I was much younger and I was still novice or mid-level to a degree in English trying an IQ test or 2 and having difficulty with the linguistic questions. And if the IQ test is in the native language of the person being tested, then it's not really standardized as there are differences across languages (including difficulty, and I'm stressing this as an IQ test in "Arabic" would typically be in Standard Arabic which isn't really the language of the person being tested as it's more of Archaic Arabic than the day-to-day language of the speaker. I'm also putting Arabic in quotes I'd argue that a language, for instance and maybe specifically "Egyptian" which is the day-to-day language in Egypt is not Arabic as it has differences on the grammar/structure level and it shouldn't be counted as Arabic simply because it uses Arabic words, plus many other words from either Coptic or other languages/cultures). So, an Egyptian for instance having an IQ test in Arabic would still struggle as Arabic itself is hard (especially that you're testing for linguistic skills!) and that's evident by Egyptian students struggling with Arabic throughout education and beyond, especially grammar! Hell, maybe even Saudi's (and I mention them as the KSA is the largest actual Arabic country - Egypt, Levant countries, North Arfican countries... are not - and the country of origin of Islam) would still have some difficulty, maybe! Also, language has some impact on how a person thinks, perceive and process the world!

Education: That's related the the point of language, but not limited to it. The quality of education would have an impact of linguistic and mathematics skills! Not only that, but other factors like how early education of foreign languages start, how many, and what are those foreign languages! Does the education rely on memorization, promotes backward ideas, encourages analytical and critical thinking...?

Religion: Studies have shown a correlation between religiosity and lower IQ, and irreligiosity and higher IQ. Also, differences between religions as, for instance, Christianity adopted elements of Greek/Roman philosophy, unlike Islam! And, another point related to the point of history, Christianity has been to, a great degree, declawed. So religion now in the West (and not necessarily the USA and Europe but Russia as well) doesn't have as much impact on society and education as religion in the Middle East and how much it degrades a person's critical thinking... And that's not only between different populations but also to a degree withing the same population (whether the kind of religion and the level of religiosity) It's also worth noting on that map: Iran, Pakistan, Kazakhstan and other former Muslim-majority Soviet Union states, North Africa, India (which not only has a Muslim population as the second largest religious group there, but Hinduism which is the largest isn't much better!) That's religion (and other factors, including genetics), not only race and genetics alone! We, some ex-Muslims or Nones in general, wonder/joke about that correlation whether it's that they're Muslim because they're stupid or stupid because they're Muslim! Although my opinion is that it's both as some sort of vicious cycle/feedback loop but I also think that's been starting to change recently with more access to information and education getting better and more leaving Islam!

Lifestyle and day-to-day burden: I mean that, for instance, struggling daily to get access to clean water or to provide for your family or even excessively studying daily would impact your education performance and thus linguistic skills and critical thinking, or limit your exposure and consumption of other cultures.

So, as a question of nature vs nurture, I'd say it's both. Denying or trying to distance genetic factors for the fear of the label of "racist" is absurd. However, it's not the whole story as culture also plays a major part as demonstrated on the map. Also I'd expect that on average an African American to have a higher IQ than Africans because of the above mentioned "cultural" (genetics and "racism", alleged current, or historical, wouldn't have much impact as that a very recent, a very short, time frame!)


I voted all of the above.  

The idea that there are no race differences in IQ is as absurd as the idea that gender identity erases differences between the two sexes.  People have different genetic heritages depending on the environment.  Natural selection effects humans just as it does all other animals.  The odds that groups of people more or less isolated either geographically or culturally will have the same intelligence is zero. The question is what is intelligence and can it be measured.  

The first error people make is that the purpose of IQ is to measure intelligence.  It's purpose is to measure abstract reasoning for counseling on life decisions.  Someone with an IQ of 100 shouldn't spend their youth working to be a doctor only to fail.  Someone with an IQ of 80 should not plan for college.  If you have an IQ under 90 you probably will not be able to join the U.S. military.  Not only do IQ test help people make happy life decisions they save the limited resources of public institutions.

As pointed out however a general factor of intelligence can be extracted from some IQ test.  The accuracy of the results are questionable for diverse populations simply due to the nature of comparative statistics.  That said there are correlations between extracted general intelligence and signs of neurological quality such as reaction times.   As far as I know there are no completely reliable data sets of reaction times for various groups of humans.  What is interesting about G is that it largely erases the Flynn effect validating it conceptually.

The next question is why should anyone care if there are racial differences in IQ.  The obvious answer is because you care about people.  IQ is as useful a tool in making national decisions as it is for individuals.  

The delusional belief in the "noble savage" or some facsimile thereof is a source of misery in the world.   Reservations for traditional hunter gathers are as unnatural as zoos.  As soon as the technology of agriculture was discovered hunter gathers were doomed.   Nobody planned it, it has nothing to do with race or racism, it simply reflects population dynamics and technological advancement.  The hypocrisy of the live and let live ethos of multiculturalism is displayed by how rapidly and covetously native people acquired firearms, metal utensils, and other trappings of agriculture people.  Today it is displayed in welfare dependence and accompanying misery.

Nomads of all varieties have always preyed on more technologically advanced settled people.   Often becoming swallowed up in conquered cultures such as the Monguls in China.  A look at the genetics of Mongolia tells an interesting story.

There is no denying that humans having evolved for an easy but unstable environment a certain degree of internal conflict and emotional pain accompanies civilized life.  Civilization requires a harsh stable environment based on productivity.  Productivity is alien to our instincts which are designed for networking, fairness or equal access to resources, and sensuality.  In the natural environment those instincts increase fitness.  In a civilized environment fitness has a different calculus.  Civilization is an environment in which natural selection unavoidably takes place.  Unfortunately it is a very slow process and cultural evolution relatively rapid.   It would however be a mistake to draw any red lines defining civilized and uncivilized.  Neotony in all humans shows considerable self domestication.  

The logical conclusion is that IQ is an acquired trait like any other.  Do to the constraints of time probably a very weak trait.  We can leave the question of intelligence aside.  We can also assume that it is a trait that can be influenced by a wide array of factors.  Some of which are cultural such as cousin marriage, diet, hierarchy, language, the list is endless.
Now that the high IQ Chinese have adopted the role of the yellow mans burden race is taking on a renewed role in human affairs.  It is ironic to say the least that it has gone unnoticed by Western anti racists.  It speaks to the shallowness of the current intellectual environment.  A similar dystopian attitude relates to the nature of Muslim culture.  In the latter case race can be replaced with ethnocentrism.  Many Muslims believe what they cannot conquer by force they can conquer by reproductive rates.  A strategy not unsimilar if not as overt as that of Catholics either consciously or coincidentally.
Finally we have to deal with whether race is a valid concept.  The answer is yes and no.  Race for the most part is a crude placeholder for genetic diversity.  The fact that genetic diversity is greatest in Africa is a meaningless observation.  There is little genetic diversity between humans and chimpanzees.  It is simply what you would expect in a founding population.  We now have the ability to create more precise genetic groupings.  In that sense race is arcane.  You could replace race with genetic groups.  It would take a very long time for the general population to adopt new naming conventions.  By the time that could happen it may be largely irrelevant.  The utility of such distinctions being overridden by cheap rapid sequencing.

For those interested in a deeper dive.


Correlation not being causation improving these test is probably a waste of time. A better use of resources would be looking for genetic ties to IQ directly. That has been done but isn't widely accepted.


IQ tests are largely irrelevant .
They are biased and as such cannot be seen as a true measure of intelligence .

A biased test does not measure what it purports to measure. While IQ tests are generally considered to measure some forms of intelligence, they may fail to serve as an accurate measure of broader definitions of human intelligence inclusive of creativity and social intelligence.





As much as western IQ tests are inherently biased toward people from European backgrounds, there are other measures of culture. Indigenous Americans and indigenous Australians are amongst few civilizations which never invented the wheel.

Satch Level 6 Feb 10, 2021

Funnily enough the Mayans and Aztecs did discover the wheel, however it was only a curiosity and children’s toy. However many examples exists.
They never used it for transport and it is believed it had to do with their roads (mountainous terrain that requires many steps), and the lack of animals to pull carts. The alpacas and lamas they used were more suited for carrying than pulling.

You can even go further and look at other civilisations who never invented the bow and arrow, never develop full languages or basic mathematics etc etc, and you form a very interesting picture when you compare how they perform in modern world.

@Hanno You mixed jor condensed the whole Americas into a single geographic scenario. No, that is wrong. Mexicas, or Aztecs, could have use wheels, and they didn't. Mayas lived in jungles but they transformed them, their roads and cities didn't look like the tourist attraction you see today. Incas actually were the only ones that had Llamas and Alpacas. Too small for massive transportation and indeed the landscape was not suitable for wheels. Funny, so it is today. Today in Bolivia, ten hours trips by car are sometimes 15 min flights in a small plane. However, the most important reason why those empires were terrible was they performed systematic human sacrifices, which reduced the pool of the people to construct their societies. Abuse of others was commonplaces in the Americas far before the arrival of the Europeans.

Yes, for the sake of brevity on a forum such as this I just combined everything and used lazy references as I was not going to read up on all of that again. So my answer was wrong and abbreviated both a little bit.
I was just pointing out that Amerind peoples did in fact invent the wheel, as they did some impressive math.

I do however agree that people that were “late” developing basic technologies are still struggling to adapt to the modernist world.

Those empires actually never killed their own citizens, but only captured enemies. We also don’t know how horrible they actually were as we only have the very biased Spanish and Portuguese priest writings about those empires. The atrocities by those early conquests are also extreme. However horrible the empires were, there were not nearly as bad as the European who came after.

However I am no expert so you will probably know better.


I took a look at some of the most recent research and noticed that the current testing is just as biased as older tests. Clearly driven by the new cultural and political norms. It is reactionary in the sense that it is focused on "correcting" the old "bad" testing and is often conducted by people with an emotional stake in the question. A broad inclusive test may measure something different than the old tests but it still is only measuring a new definition of intelligence.

The search for G is academic. I'm not saying it is a waste of time only that only that it is likely to produce results only an intellectual is likely to be interested in. The us of specialized tests such as the U.S. military uses is just common sense. What we want are tests that help people make happy decisions. Setting the genetic issues aside what we have seen is that interventions have marginal long term benefits. Something else besides bias is holding people back. It is almost as if the social norms are designed to fail. I believe that most racial differences will disappear over time but that doesn't help anyone today.

The first step to solving the problem of differences in intelligence is to stop shoving people into places where they will fail or are unhappy. It's not a racial problem. It's an attitude problem. If you are doing something in the name of equality you have already adopted a delusional view. No two people have equal ability in anything. Why should differences in intelligence be any different than differences in athletic ability in determining compensation? Of course ability isn't the only factor because motivation is a key element.

The key to motivation is respect. We respect people that are motivated to improve themselves. The importance of competency hierarchies to a functioning society should be self evident. To the extent that competence is acquired should then be the basis for respect. Because I had a religious up bringing I have never segregated people into groups. As a child I respected the butcher as much as the doctor. respect was dependent on them being a "good" person. Good people do not take on responsibilities they are incapable of fulfilling. They work however hard they have to to be competent in whatever they have chosen to do. It isn't fair that it requires different amounts of effort but that is why agency is important. Society requires people make good choices.


It's simply about access to education. Coupled with social and economic development. People that voted "genetics" need to rethink their lives.

Wolak Level 5 Feb 5, 2021

That seems overly simplistic if you're talking about formal education. I would agree that access to educational material and information can make a difference, but formal education, especially at the higher levels here in the US is pretty much a joke. I do think that genetics play a minor role as well, but I think environment and upbringing play the largest role.


The IQ test was invented by psychologist to classify people with a bias favoring those people groups that have urban structure and formal rout memory based education, and has been used to classify many indigenous peoples as sub human to justify the stealing of their lands.
The Origins and History of IQ Tests


The only justification needed was that the so called 'indigenous' peoples were too pathetic to defend themselves.
The IQ test was designed by a French psychologist to measure the mental abilities of children.
Did you even read your own citation?

@AdrianRainbow this test was given to Native Americans as evidence of "feeble-minded of the lowest grade, moron class." this was used to justify the forced sterilisation of Native American. This was done in the early 1900 and was not ended until 1978. The Simon Binet Intelligence Scale "IQ" was used in a way it was never intended to be used for years to justify the crimes of the eugenics movement. Even to this day it is used as a way of demeaning people who are not inclined to excel at academic achievements.

@KeVince It wasn't invented for that purpose though, as I said, Jesus.

@KeVince And regardless of how it was used, the results are reliable.

@KeVince Oh BTW, anyone born in America is a native. It's the definition of the word.
And before you even bother, no one is indigenous to the Americas.

You're a bit dim, aren't you.

@KeVince 'First nation settlers', is all you have.

@AdrianRainbow My great grand mother is Native American so if you are referring to the indigenous people of the Americas as the first nation you are right they were and still are the first nation that was here, If your past offends you then instead of trying to cover it up learn something from it and work on changing the future. The fact that social Darwinism is still taught as creditable, that is evolution, is evidence that people do not understand the origins of race or discrimination. The IQ test whatever the origins, was and is still used to discriminate against people.

@KeVince Your gran is a 'native' American along with every single person born in the US, and there are still NO indigenous Americans.
You made a purposefully false claim about the origin, and purpose, of IQ testing, and then cited an article that actually disproved your own claim.
You either A. made a false claim knowing it was false and posted a citation you hoped no one would read, including yourself, or you B. disingenuously made the false claim knowing it was untrue after reading the article.
You choose.
Either way, I see no point in engaging with someone who is so intellectually dishonest.

@AdrianRainbow The Americas where not empty lands when the explorers from other lands showed up with their diseases and weapons even to this day there is an attempt to remove them from the lands and erase them from history to ease the concise of the European I am also of Irish origin who were once referred to as a "negro turned inside out". I guess that you think the English never mistreated them either.

@KeVince You purposefully made a false claim at the top of this conversation, and now you're just deflecting the reality of your dishonesty.
I'm Welsh, so stop with the, my gran, my Irish descent, trump cards, they're lame.
First nation settlers arrived in America 23,000 years ago, from Siberia, they are still not 'indigenous'. Jesus, how slow are you?

I'm done here.


If you look at this way: those in moderate (ie tropical) climates have a less stressful environment to live in that does less to provoke needed changes, therefore no need to learn new behaviors. The higher the stress to just survive, the higher the IQ, ability to learn and adapt....

This claim has been made by those who feel that problem solving was more important in colder places and could have enabled better problem solvers to have more kids... thus resulting in higher average IQs.

There is an unrelated cause of IQ differences - the amount of day-to-day problem solving that people do. The "Flynn Effect" is the fact that from 1920-1980s IQs have gone up about 10 points... but obviously, people didn't get smarter - just that they had better nutrition and did more daily abstract problem solving.

It has to do with the need to plan ahead.
If you live in tropical region in the past, you only needed to plan for today. With lot of effort you could feed yourself again tomorrow.

In cold regions with long hard winters, if you did not plan 6 months ahead, you died.

Unfortunately for the tropical peoples, modern civilisation and advancement favoured those that evolved to think ahead.

Some facets of IQ include the ability to see patterns and plan accordingly... that favoured people from harsh areas.

It completely ignore other skills that were very important in the past such as memory. Tropical peoples had to remember many more things than there cold country cousins.
Unfortunately that is not all important in modern society and successful civilisations.
The ability to make links between observations and plan accordingly is what causes the big differences between tropical and temperate peoples.

And those were all evolution driven.


IQ test are notoriously biased toward English and Math. The most damning thing about them is that people can study / take prep classes to improve their score. This proves it is a poor measure of general intelligence and a good measure of knowledge of a body of knowledge. There are some tests that don’t use words/ numbers but those are generally not the ones people take. Example: If I took an IQ test today that measured my knowledge of obscure Japanese words, I’d have a pretty low IQ because I don’t know Japanese.

Most IQ tests are not language dependent as they often use shapes and tests of memory. I think you're referring more to a SAT type test where it is measuring proficiency. There, however, a correlation between SATs and IQ but it's not 100% (as expected). This chart would be more powerful if it linked to the raw sources and methodology. For the time being, what if the IQ tests were valid in your opinion?


I suspect IQ tests, and even measurable adult intellect itself, is as much a test of how well one has adapted to "modernity" as much as inherent natural intelligence.

This is not to claim the tests are culturally biased (which they could well be to a degree), but that living in a modern setting, filled with complex daily interactions with manufactured technological objects and complex tasks for daily life, full of spatial structures with geometrical relationships, and abstract ideas and verbal challenges; trains the mind from a very young age to more fully realize its potential.

I refer you to my post below, that biology plays a role is self evident, forget race that is a side issue.

What IQ measures is not the question. The question is if what it measures is a useful measure. The answer is it certainly is if you want to maintain a technologically advanced culture. It flows both ways.


@wolfhnd I didn't mean to imply biology isn't a factor -- only that how one develops the mind from childhood through adulthood plays a big role too. I don't think there's one simple answer to the OP's poll question, but I think the societal/technological environment ones matures in hones the intellect for that same environment, and I believe that's generally what our tests measure.


I understood you I just wanted to clarify for other readers. I'm a bit frustrated by a lot of the replies.

What you have pointed out would given enough time and enough isolation between technologically advanced people and non technological people cause and evolutionary differences due to natural selection in different environments. Whether those conditions have been meet is in question.

@wolfhnd I wouldn't expect selection to be an either/or, but rather to what degree, and if it's sufficient to be measurable.

Even if there were no new genes, the proportions of genes expressing in various populations can change in just a few generations.


Good points. What most people fail to appreciate is that very small difference have dramatic consequences. The small difference between males and females for example have produced in Sweden, despite considerable social energy devoted to diversifying the work force, men dominating thing jobs and women dominating people jobs.

The other point I wanted to bring up is that the bell curve is deceptive. It makes it look like the difference in intelligence between normal and outliers is a nice steady curve. In reality the functional difference for intellectual work is almost algorithmic. That difference is then compounded by the social environment in terms of effectiveness. Very small genetic differences have not only huge effects in the aggregate but between individuals.


IQ testing is mainly based on learned knowledge so in places where you have less education are going to have lower IQ on tests.

@Lootmonger Where did you hear that? Source please.

IQ tests aren't completely culture-free, but a number exist that employ minimal use of learned knowledge (crystalized intelligence, as we say, as opposed to fluid intelligence).

I'm aware of one example in which culture was an issue. A researcher was employing non-verbal IQ tests in rural South America. They found children who had attended school performed fine on these tests, but children who hadn't (not every kid gets a formal education) did not. The issue was the geometric shapes used. When you live in the jungle, you don't often see a perfect triangle or polygon, so that was an impediment to testing.

However, in spite of their shortcomings, IQ tests are still the best predictors of academic achievement available. They are the most valid - see construct validity - and reliable tests in the psychological sciences. Therefore, even if someone has an issue with IQ tests, they still measure what their supposed to - academic potential. If someone can invent a better test of academic achievement than IQ tests, they are more than welcome to propose and test one.

Likewise, arguments regarding the cultural fairness of IQ tests are dubious given the fact Asians seems to do just fine on IQ tests that were designed by Europeans. In fact, they do better than Whites. For some reason, no one argues IQ tests are biased in favor of Jews and Asians. Likewise, even the old "biased" used back in the early 20th-Century demonstrated the same racial IQ gaps we see today. In fact, any native-born American who speaks English can take a conventional IQ test without concerns about the test's validity.

I highly encourage you to read Mainstream Science on Intelligence, which is just as good a summary of the state of the science today as it was when it was published 24 years ago.

@ZuzecaSape i would say you are right that it is the best we have. that still means that it can be improved we have yet to find a way to do it though. as to a link [] it was an interesting study and by no means conclusive. I believe it makes valid points and working in the vicinity of stressed out people, I have seen them make very stupid decisions due to the stress. That is more of an observation than anything else though.


Mr. Sowell sheds light in the matter of iq disparity.


"A year ago, no gene had ever been tied to performance on an IQ test. Since then, more than 500 have, thanks to gene studies involving more than 200,000 test takers. Results from an experiment correlating one million people’s DNA with their academic success are due at any time.

The discoveries mean we can now read the DNA of a young child and get a notion of how intelligent he or she will be, says Plomin, an American based at King’s College London, where he leads a long-term study of 13,000 pairs of British twins."


As soon as it is possible China will start gene editing to increase intelligence. What should we do in response?

It's reported China is using gene therapy.




The average IQ is not terribly important.

It is the actual number of people with IQ’s above
120 that matters.

That is why the IQ of India is relatively low (although I have my reservations about that number), however due to its large population and high IQ variation it is a world power.

China in the other with its high average IQ and population, due to its narrow IQ variation, actually have similar number of >120 IQ individuals as India and much lower than the US.

Hanno Level 7 Feb 6, 2021

Interesting and something with looking into.


It's a direct measure of how much % the population should increase / decrease by, according to China.

  1. The IQ test and metrics are bunk, about as credible as a scientology test.

  2. There is no proper reliable way to test for intelligence for every circumstance in any meaningful way because it is poorly defined in the first place, especially in the case of troubled children, people with autism and victims of brain damage.

  3. Poor nutrition and sickness... you ain't too smart looking when you're dying of hunger or loaded on excessive empty calories 😐

  4. Western education systems sucks and only teaches you what to think and learn but not How to Think and Learn so to many kid become drifters and fall into bad habit and company... you become like the first 4-5 people closest to you who you spent the most time with

The IQ test is involved in scientology as it's just maths/puzzle solving, and doesn't test character very well

The scientology/Oxford Capacity Analysis test is about 100 questions, and outputs 10 different results - stable/unstable, happy/depressed, composed/nervous, certain/uncertain, active/inactive, aggressive/inhibited, responsible, uncritical/over-critical, connected/lack of accord, communication level.

@PeasKeeper I know... BecauseI sat their test! ofcource they didn't mention it was for Scientology though, they had already been in the news alot by that time. And I only noticed what I walked into when I saw all the L ron Hubbard Merchandise in the room =/

So I played along with them, filled out aload of nonsensical details on the forum so I could get out of their as quickly as possible.

I think it's more of personalty/psychologically test they've picked out and used to see if you are both susceptible to endocranation and manipulation or if they can upsell you course with some products.

Everything is a marketing game with these people, long history of using these tools to manipulate markets, pretty sure Facebook had a teach dedicated to personality profiling.


Ibram Kendi says IQ tests are themselves racist. 🤡

We all know Ibram Kendi is a lunatic & a racist. Those who disagree with him are racist!

Kendi assumed the position of director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University.

Ibram Kendi suggests Tim Scott is racist for denying United States is racist.



H there. Trying to vote but when selecting, it shows an error message.


I suspect it is largely biological/genetic, and not an issue with racism.


IQ tests are flawed and obsolete.
Created by white people based on white people metrics to be used on white people to determine chance of success in work related fields.

As such, is it any surprise that these tests are lower in non-white countries where work, culture, and what is considered "intelligent" is different?

I also question the methodology behind this chart and thus this chart is flawed and untrustworthy

You'll see that SAT scores is one of the sources, a test that has ZERO meaning outside the USA and outside college admission.
Another of the sources is "etc" meaning who knows what went into creating this chart.
And "jews" figure prominently in their assessment but not catholics, muslims, etc. I find this focus on jews hints at overt or covert anti-semitism.
Nor are the categories the same in all countries and thus it is unclear that there can be any valid comparason.

(Addendum: I adhere to Howard Gardner's "multiple intelligence" view of intelligence and thus outright reject that one can quantify intelligence with on number.)

I found this 2018 book "The Nature of Human Intelligence by Robert Sternberg to be interesting: [] or []

It's a misconception that IQ tests do not measure general intelligence. Using factor analysis, it is possible to extract the g-factor, which is an ability to do better on any type of challenge. Can you cite what evidence you are using that "IQ tests are flawed and obsolete (way to measure intelligence)."?

SAT and IQ are highly correlated although it is possible for studious types to improve their SAT scores a few % with hard work. []

Regarding the chart, if you were convinced that the chart shows accurate estimates of IQ (or g-factor) in different countries, what would be your next argument? A common one is "Intelligence doesn't matter".

Never read the book you mention but it does include a chapter by Howard Gardner, whom I follow and mentioned above. I use his basic, 8 intelligence model, as a foundation and so I'm very interested to hear what he said in that book. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what he said in the book.

Using factor analysis, it is possible to extract the g-factor, which is an ability to do better on any type of challenge.

Any type?

I think an Australian aborigine's that's spent all their time in the bush would do very poorly on an IQ/ g-factor and yet would be able to survive the outback far longer and better than a European with a very high IQ/g-factor test. I think this is an excellent example that they have far superior naturalistic intelligence than can be measured by a single integer IQ.

Find a random someone with a high IQ and ask them to play a trumpet and a piano and a guitar. You'll find that while many people with high IQ also play music, it is not the case that having a high IQ makes you have perfect pitch or more prone to creative endeavors. It is also not true that low IQ scores make bad musicians This is an example of musical intelligence which again, IMO, cannot be adequately conveyed by a singular IQ number.

This "psychology today" article provides a good summary of my position, quote

On the whole, they are moving away from a focus on a single IQ score. Instead, they are relying on updated models of intelligence, such as the Cattell-Horn-Carrol (CHC) theory that emphasizes multiple cognitive abilities. In fact, there is a trend now to not even refer to IQ tests as measures of "intelligence" but instead refer to them as tests of "cognitive ability." Some tests are even based on neurological functioning.
Most (but not all) researchers fully admit that IQ tests only measure a piece of the intelligence pie (although they argue it is an important piece). [1]

[1] []


Regarding the chart, if you were convinced that the chart shows accurate estimates of IQ (or g-factor) in different countries, what would be your next argument?

I would present no further argument for I feel the chart in the OP has serious flaws, the biggest one is the reliance on a single-digit as a valid qualifier of intelligence.

Regarding your graph of SAT v IQ, however, I would explain that rather easily: the same things traditionally tested in a traditional single-score IQ test... namely linguistic and math-logical intelligences using Gardner's designations... are also those traditionally tested in the SAT.

However, other forms of intelligence that are also important for success in life and work... Spatial, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Musical, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, and Naturalist... are not adequately represented

@TheMiddleWay An acquaintance of mine who many years ago won half a million AUD on a local version of " Who Want's To Be A Millionaire." was lead guitarist in Aussie band Skyhooks.



Leftists want to pretend that intelligence is a product of social environment and education.

It is only partly so. In addition, size matters. Brain size matters.

Different races have vastly different brain sizes and vastly different IQs.

IQ correlates strongly with brain size. The data is overwhelming. It's an untouchable sound bite.

Intelligence is biological. Intelligence is racial.

Height is racial. The data is overwhelming.

You will never ever ever ever see the NBA change its rules to increase the number of short people in the league. The NBA is undiverse. Almost everyone is tall. Short people are excluded. It's apartheid. The NBA is guilty of systemic heightism. Bigots.

Leftists are hypocrites. Whenever leftists are at a disadvantage, they demand a handicap. Whenever leftists have the advantage, they refuse to give a handicap.
This is why leftists are assholes. All their demands for equity are hypocritical bull.

Wrestling is civilized. Wrestling has weight classes. The NBA should institute height classes. Small people have been discriminated against throughout history, so small people should get reparations.

In South Park, Kyle tries out for the basketball team and fails. Then he gets a negroplasty and transitions from white to black, from short to tall, and he makes the basketball team.

What do you call a fast man that can't catch? A cornerback.

What do you call a fast man that can't tackle? A wide receiver.

What do you call a fast man that can't tackle or catch? A sprinter.

What do you call a fast man that can tackle and catch? A rugby player.

What do you call a slow man man that can't tackle or catch, but is badass in intangible ways? A rugby player.

A team needs players with diverse skills. Rugby teams tend to be diverse. On a rugby team there is room for people that are big and slow, and for people that are small and fast.

Cancel basketball. Watch rugby.


The standard deviation of the IQ distribution is 15 points. IQ is only useful up to an IQ of 130. Above that, you need a harder test to discriminate intelligence.

For hard tests, the gap between races is even more stark than IQ suggests.

         Physics   U.S. Math    Putnam math  Science   Science talent    Siemens
         Olympiad  Olympiad    winners    Olympiad  search finalists  Competition
         winners   team                      winners

Asian      81         72         50          50          64             61
White      19         28         50          50          36             39
Other      <1         <1         <1           0           0              0

The demographics of Caltech, in %, are:
Asian 44
White 28
Hispanic 6
Black 1
International 9

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 462

Photos 19 More

Posted by Charter Does a country's wealth come from its energy use?

Posted by Charter Why does the worldwide IQ distribution appear to match racial IQ differences seen in multi-racial countries?

Posted by Charter Why do children raised in same-sex households appear to have worse life outcomes?

Posted by Charter Is it fair that actresses are younger and have shorter careers than actors?

Posted by Charter Why are asylum seekers in EU overwhelmingly (military-aged) men? If asylum seekers were fleeing for persecution reasons, does it make sense that most are young men? Source: []

Posted by Charter Why do young women consider unwanted comments about their appearance as sexual harassment compared to older women?

Posted by Charter Are women aware of the risks of postponing having children?

Posted by Charter Is this proof that income inequality doesn't appear to be cause of white-black SAT/IQ gap?

Posted by Charter Is a multi-cultural society a good thing?

Posted by Charter Why hasn't anti-Muslim sentiment gone down after the spike due to 9/11? Source: FBI Crime Statistics []

Posted by Charter Why does the average IQ of a country appears to decrease as religiosity increases?

Posted by Charter Northern states tend to have more "social capital". How's yours?

Posted by Charter Most federal revenue comes from income and payroll tax. Is that optimal? Soure: []

Posted by Charter On a percentage basis, it is much more likely to be killed by a Muslim "terrorist" in the US than a Right-Wing "extremist". Does it feel that way?

Posted by Charter Why do Blacks have a much higher risk of being murdered by other Blacks than they do from Whites? Post suggested by @AdrianRainbow

Posted by Charter What can be implied from the fact that African-American homicide rate mirrors African nations while European-American homicide rate is comparable to European nations? Post suggested by @ZuzecaSape

  • Top tags#children #USA #world #vote #desperate #culture #immigrants #muslims #god #video #wealth #racism #Canada #gender #truth #Harassment #TheTruth #college #marriage #IncomeInequality #inequality #Asian #policy #population #immigration #crimes #crime #philosophy #religiosity #intelligence #bowling #Mexico #Socialcapital #government #taxes #terrorists #RightWing #friends #mother #wife #justice #Christian #faith #kids #fear #whites #JordanPeterson #federal #WhiteSupremacy #humanity ...

    Members 48,233Top