It might be strange to ask why India’s IQ is so high, since its average IQ of 82 is actually quite below the world average of 90, and far lower than expected from the incredible intelligence of Indian Americans. But based on India’s genetics and nutrition level, one might expect a much lower IQ. For India is home to some of the most primitive people in the World. When humans first left Africa some 70,000 years ago, not everyone evolved into a Mongoloid or even a Caucasoid, some just camped out on the warm beaches of India and genetically preserved the ancient phenotype of proto-Negroids.
(Image found here.)
These non-African Negroids became known as the australoids and I estimate they have a genetic IQ of 73 (the lowest genetic IQ of any “non-African” group). Had the australoids continued to dominate India, it likely never would have progressed much beyond the stone age, let alone become a major civilization and advanced economy, but about 8000 years ago, India started to get invaded by non-white caucasoids and I estimate these have an average genetic IQ of 90.
(This image of Aishwarya Rai can be found here)
It seems India is pretty much an equal mix of primitive australoids (genetic IQ 73) and the more advanced non-white caucasoids (genetic IQ 90) and thus should have an average genetic IQ around 82 (in between both groups). For example, nature reported:
…researchers showed that most Indian populations are genetic admixtures of two ancient, genetically divergent groups, which each contributed around 40-60% of the DNA to most present-day populations. One ancestral lineage — which is genetically similar to Middle Eastern, Central Asian and European populations — was higher in upper-caste individuals and speakers of Indo-European languages such as Hindi, the researchers found. The other lineage was not close to any group outside the subcontinent, and was most common in people indigenous to the Andaman Islands, a remote archipelago in the Bay of Bengal.
Well India does have an average IQ of around 82, so why am I complaining? Because 82 is what India’s genetic IQ should be, but given India’s extreme malnutrition, it is likely functioning well below it’s genetic level. For example, about 45% of South Asia is malnourished, and I estimate that for each percentage of the population that is nutritionally deficient enough to be proclaimed malnourished, the average IQ of the population is lowered by 0.43 IQ points.
So if India’s genetic IQ is 82, it’s phenotypic IQ should be 82 – 19.35 = 63
But we know from actually testing people in India, that India’s average phenotypic IQ is not 63, it’s 82
Or since India’s phenotypic IQ is reportedly 82, that implies it’s genetic IQ should be 82 + 19.35 = 101
But if India is a roughly equal mix of non-white caucasoids and australoids, how could it have a genetic IQ of 101?
How do we resolve the paradox? One possibility is that South Asia is not nearly as malnourished as reported since the 45% figure is even far higher that sub-Saharan African levels. Another possibility is that the non-white caucasoids who originally invaded India actually have a much higher genetic IQ than 90. For example commenter misdreavus asserted that “Middle Eastern populations have also changed visibly since the Ummayyad Caliphate due to miscegenation with black slaves”. Another reader mentioned in an email than non-white caucasoids may have had their IQs depressed by the inbreeding of cousin marriages, popular in the Muslim world.
Yet another possibility is that India’s IQ is indeed much lower than reported, but the lower caste, and most tribal low IQ peoples of India are not accessible to psychologists giving IQ tests.
Pumpkin Person 
India was always densely populated, probably more than anywhere else in the world, outside Japan. I suspect a high density encourages small stature, stereotypical meekness, peacefulness and better ability to read social cues, very similar to Japanese society.
Africa is to Europe as India is to Japan in that India has an relatively higher nonverbal than verbal iq.
Africa is to Europe as India is to Japan in that India has an relatively higher nonverbal than verbal iq.
Surely you have that reversed.
Im talking about the verbal predominance of Africans and Europeans vs the nonverbal predominance of south Asians and east Asians.
Height has a similar dichotomy; Asians and Indians even with adequate nutrition as a group tend to be shorter than well fed Africans and Europeans.
It may also explain the rampant individualism seen in blacks and whites vs the family oriented east.
Indian intelligence profile is probably similar to that of Europeans. Indians tend to do much better in fields like law compared to East Asians. Socially they’re also more assertive (I know social ability only has a small correlation at best with verbal IQ, but just an interesting observation).
Genotypical ( ”real”) Iq 90 is likely to be for AVERAGE indian iq in better environment. I don’t know why the surprise about above quantitative intelligence of american indians…
Enormous population,
caste system producing great differences in intelligence among them,
selective immigration…
There are quite many ethnic groups in India, I guess it depends.
Hello Captain Obvious !
Dude, you’re not me.
Don’t be using my name.
You know it’s the real me when you see the pretty green avitar
And the real me is back.
Holler if you missed me.
Where’s Kate?
Is she banned?
She & I are the only 2 people here above 150 IQ
Kate, are you out there?
Holler!
I’m here baby.
I will take care of you don’t worry.
LOL !
I’m 100 % sure that the blasian have inherited his rate of testosterone from the black side.
That’s incredible the dude is always bragging about his supposedly high IQ and being excited by the only woman in the comments section of this blog.
😀
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/12/why-is-india-so-low-in-the-pisa-rankings.html
I find it hard to believe the 101 number, the dysfunction in India seems to run counter intuitive to that.
Even when China was desperately poor under Mao it was still a very well organized society that was relatively free of violence.
Furthermore India has a significant population of elites that are not malnourished and go to elite indian schools. Yet despite this massive population of elites they don’t seem to perform well in anything other than spelling bees. They get crushed in the science and math olympiads, Pisa etc..
If I recall india took last years PISA and got last place scoring like a subsaharan country. The two states that took it were the wealthier states in India.
Before we can conclude that Indians have 101 genetic average iq
We need to address poor performance on standardized international tests and competitions. The massive inability for the country to get its shit together. Why are people still pooping in the streets and starving? For countries that are poor but have decent iq these problems were fixed years ago.
Genetically indians are extremely close to pakistanis and that country isn’t doing well either.
The common explanation seems to be that the average iq is indeed 80-85 but due to the caste system they have a tiny minority that have average iqs around 100-105. And most of the indian americans are from the high classes
Do lower caste Indian Americans regress to 101 or 85? Say 3rd generation and later
Do pakistani americans regress to 101 or 85 after 3 or more gens?
Do transracial adoptions white families adopting indian children from india show 101 or 85?
Argentina and Brazil have ”subsaharian” scores in Pisa tests too but both countries clearly no have same intelligence level than subsaharian ones, specially Argentina. Pisa scores around the world is not perfect, depend if tests was applied in all schools, or if was applied only in public schools or in private schools, number of people who make this tests, if children and teens have advantages ( i was a student in a public school, i know how work) to do the exames, if teachers manipulate results, etc..
http://akarlin.com/2012/08/minorities-cognitive-performance-in-the-uk/
This link shows that even with first world nutrition, Pakistani and Bangladeshi kids have an iq of 90 to 95 depending on iq type. Indian kids have a 97 to 101, depending on type.
The Pakistani score is the most representative of south Asia because the majority of Pakistanis chain migrated to the uk from Kashmir in the 60s and 70s.
Blacks scoring 92? Your link just shows that all of the immigrants to the uk are heavily selected.
Also pisa is not a meaningless score it has a .86 correlation with national iq scores.
Brazil and Argentina placed with other south American countries. They didn’t come in last place like India. India did worse than the middle eastern and north african countries. And these are the cherry picked parts of india. According to the pisa iq correlation south america is scoring at the low 90s while lndia is 85 or lower.
“The common explanation seems to be that the average iq is indeed 80-85 but due to the caste system they have a tiny minority that have average iqs around 100-105. And most of the indian americans are from the high classes”
Several things here:
1. India low castes IQ is about 70’s, Indian avg IQ is about low 80s. If there’s equal mix as per pumpkinperson, how you can get a sub group in India with IQ of 100-105? A mathematical impossiblity?
2. from another angle: If there’s equal mix btw primitive australoids (genetic IQ 73) and the more advanced non-white caucasoids ( IQ 90-95), whatever their mixed offsprings’ IQ would be, it won’t go higher than 90-95, far from it actually.
Conclusion from 1 and 2 : it is impossible to find a single caste having avg IQ of as high as 100-105, or perhaps even 95, in India. Otherwise, the whole HBD thing, along with that Wurm Glaciation thing, can all go to garbage bin now.
3. Therefore, even assuming the tiny minority Indians in America all come from the highest caste in India, their CASTE avg IQ is not 100-105 ( IMO it is more likely to be around high 80s – the similar with the current Iranians or Turks). The Indian American avg IQ being 100-105, or even high than 120, is simplely due to selective immigration which has ZERO to do with which caste, highest or lowest, they come from. The fact that there are so many brilliant Indian Americans is not because they come from a high IQ high caste in India, but simplely because India’s population is so large and the numbers of top 0.01% IQ talents would end up so many that basically make it irrelevant which “caste/s” they belong to.
Mao’s China had much lower percapita income than India.
“Mao’s China had much lower percapita income than India.”
That is just a plain “clever” propaganda.
1) At the start of Mao (1949), PRC China was in complete ruin after decades of nationwide wars against Japanese invasions and 4 years of bloody Civil War that followed. In 1949, China’s avg life expanacy was about 32, literacy rate <10%, functonal railway vitually next to zero, boycotted by the UN and almost entire outside world via trade, had electricity generating capacity far lower than "India", had overall GDP far lower than India, and GDP per/cap 50% lower than India and most of Sub Sahara Africa (so had South Korea though). In comparison "India" at its birth inheritated the longest and the most advanced railway system in the entire Asia built by the British extending to all corners of the country, longwith other almost first world infrastructures included rule of laws, independent courts, democracy and a large section of well-educated English-speaking elites who rubbed the shouders with the, world's best, decorated with extensive trading routes and relations with the entire world particularly the Common Wealth. Needless to say that "India" was almost untouched by the sheer destroying power of WW2, under China, Korea.
2) 3 years under Mao in 1952, China's per cap electricity comsumption was already about the same as India, the similar with total steel production, and overall GDP.
3) another 6 years prior to 1960 under Mao, China's steel production was about 6X that of India, electricity generation 3X of India, and overal GDP higher than India, with GDP per cap catching up fast…
4) in 1976 at the death of Mao – the high of Cultural Revolution (the rock bottom of China's economy among other things) when China was at the brink of collapse, China's GDP per cap was even higher than India, with overall GDP , literacy rate, life expantancy rate, industrial production, electricity generation, infant motality rate, railway, road expanstions…etc. (basically every major index one cares to measure), FAR higher than India. Needless to metion that even the laws were not there ( they're still not here now), the country was in complete political chaos, China was still a very orderly and much clearner country than India at a time.
This happened mostly when China was boycotted commecially by almost the entire outside world just opposite of India.
Political madness and suffering of the masses aside, what Mao did to China economically was a huge disaster, making China progressed FAR slower than it couldhave done. It, however, doesn't mean China didn't grow. Actually it grew quite fast as well, particularly in comparison to India at a time. From this period one can see a concrete example of how avg IQ105 (under extreme Communism, a madman leader, and world boycott starting at zero) Vs avg IQ 82 (under mild socialism, laissez-faire capitalism & democracy starting as "the Crown Jewel" of the British legacy) could be alike.
The quality of schools also matter. In india even the best schools often stress rote memorisation over understanding and applying knowledge.
don’t they just look like moneys? 😉
norms of reaction, an illustration from the plant kingdom, the gentian:
This is a cosmopolitan genus, occurring in alpine habitats in temperate regions of Asia, Europe and the Americas. Some species also occur in northwestern Africa, eastern Australia, and New Zealand. They are annual, biennial, and perennial plants. Some are evergreen, others are not.
Many gentians are difficult to grow outside their wild habitat, but several species are available in cultivation. Gentians are fully hardy and can grow in full sun or partial shade. They grow in well-drained, neutral to acid soils rich in humus. They are popular in rock gardens.
so they grow all over the world and are hardy yet are difficult to grow outside their native habitat.
hmmmm!
I noticed you managed to slither back onto LOTB using a new name
you slither.
i fly.
birds eat snakes.
Oh geez, what other names does Michael troll under?
ttp://mcclanahoochie.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/reaction-range-1-1024×651.jpg
Here is a good image that represents IQ reaction ranges
I recall early iq tests on the Irish putiing them at 87 iq while iq tests closer to the modern day put them at 98.
Likewise for the chinese early iq tests put them at 98 while more recent test gives 105.
What does this mean?
That the iq gains from the flynn effect due to improving living conditions seems to be around 8-11 points
The pisa iq coverted scores puts India at 74 iq, regular iq tests puts them at 84. So what does this appear to mean? The most optimistic outlook possible seems to be 94 iq with maxed out living conditions, the reasonable estimate would be 90 and the most pessimistic estimate would be 84.
Either way pumpkins 101 estimate needs to be reevaluated.
India’s genetic IQ is 101 if you agree with the following 3 assumptions:
1) India has a phenotypic IQ of 82
2) 45% of India is malnourished
3) for each percentage of the population that is nutritionally deficient enough to be proclaimed malnourished, the average IQ of the population is lowered by 0.43 IQ points.
If any of these three assumptions are wrong, then the estimate for India’s genetic IQ could be wrong.
I’m not sure why I get such a high estimate for India’s genetic IQ, because from an HBD perspective it makes no sense, given that India is a mix of non-white caucasoids (genetic IQ maybe 90 though perhaps higher when they invaded India) and australoids (genetic IQ maybe 73)
Anatoly Karlin placed India’s genetic IQ at 97. There’s probably been significant selective pressure to bring up their IQ since the original intermixing of the Caucasoids and Australoids.
Is the source [ of 1. India has a phenotypic IQ of 82 ] serious?
there are no australoids in India.you should read razib khans work on India before speaking rubbish.
Well according to the genetic study I cited, roughly half of India’s gene pool is descended from people related to indigenous Andaman Islanders, which might be classified as Australoid.
There’s also DNA evidence linking Indian tribes to Australian aboriginals:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/07/24/2635149.htm
On the other hand, geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza stated that despite their dark skin, the Indian phenotype is clearly Caucasoid, not African or Australoid, and his genetic charts had them clustering with Caucasoids.
I would be interested to see what scientist Razib Khan had to say
“Anatoly Karlin placed India’s genetic IQ at 97. There’s probably been significant selective pressure to bring up their IQ since the original intermixing of the Caucasoids and Australoids.” (Lion of the Judah-sphere)
It doesn’t make sense, because
1, “significant selective pressure” to me is a kind of myth that has been abused for too many occasions, since every country every races and sub-races have been subject to racial intermixing to some extend and facing this “significant selective pressure” since time immemorial. What made this Indian one that special from the others?
2. The caste system putting into place at a time ( till now) , on the contrary, have made life significantly easiler ( instead of “significant selective pressure”) for the lighter skin higher IQ hence “high castes”. If this “significant selective pressure” really had done the trick, it would have been the lower castes( IQ 70s) who undertook the benefits with the avg IQ of higher castes going down in time, which is actually what I guess.
Too complicated too outline in one post, but check out HBD Chick and Gregory Cochran. In Europe, the government placed significant selective pressures against the poor/genetically inferior through the use of capital punishment to weed out criminals, allowing the elites to out-reproduce the poor. This probably also occurred to an extent in India. The low IQ individuals also had poor nutrition and more disease exposure. Because of India’s high population density (the highest in the world outside of perhaps Japan), the selective pressure were especially strong- diseases spread faster, fewer resources, more battling by men over mates. The higher castes had less exposure to disease and malnutrition, but more intense competition in the form of Brahmin status competition. All of this could have led to higher IQ.
Indian malnutrition is most definitely as bad if not worse than Africa’s. Jim Roger’s, the famous investor and commodity trader, has said as much (http://www.jimrogers.com/content/stories/articles/india.html). India pretty much sucks compared to the rest of world in terms of health and infrastructure despite its large, highly educated elite. When you have a highly corrupt, highly inbred population with thousands of opposing ethnic, religious, and political factions, nothing gets done and you stay mired in poverty.
That’s why I think the concept of “selective pressure” has been abused too much too often. Except there’s a clear DNA/gene level evidence as outlined by Cochran (that the last time nature selective pressure acted on human seemed to be 4 or 5 thousands years ago in East Asia… sth along the line), so-called “selective pressure” rationale can be equally argued from the both sides of the coin, at least.
e.g.
In case of Europe, one can argue that though tough punishment weeded out criminals, it didn’t neccesarily had anything to do with IQ, did it?
i. criminal =//= low IQ per se, as many criminals have been actually high IQers.
ii. Euroepan social political “elites” =//= higher IQ per se.
iii. most imporantly, weeding out criminals =//= more “selective pressure” on high IQer per se (not even neccesarily leading to higher avg IQ per se) , since it could well be the lower IQers who undertook this pressure more for being waried about both making a tougher living and escaping extra govt punishments ( aren’t Ashkenazi Jewish people one of the most quoted examples along this line as well?).
It was particularly so in case of India, where
i. The highest caste Brahmin =//= highest avg IQ per se. It could be so 5,000 yrs ago, not neccesarily today, due to god-know-what countless interbreeding. The evidences here are numerous, since many states in India with predominately-Brahmin population are in fact having the lowest GDP per cap, or having the some of the highest illiteracy rates, in India. These counter your argument that their avg IQ has risen faster relatively speaking to others, because if it had been the case, one would have seen some true islands of excellence in India in predominantly Brahmin-regions, sort of “Switzerlands”. Why not, with all the born-with-it priviledges they have had throughout thousands of years? In reality none.
ii. being higher castes (PRESUMMABLELY with higher IQ) in India has been a guarantee of making an easier livinghood in India throughout ages. No matter how dumb some have been, they have had much easier and less challenging life, compared to the smartest fractions of the lower castes despite of having higher avg IQ than the former. “Selective pressure”, in this case, could have acted more on many brunches of lower castes due to tougher life than many, if not most, of highest castes people who, form cradle to grave, have had their economical, political, social and religious priviledges entirely protected and insured by the Indian society.
Bangladesh have the highest population density.
What do you mean “inbred” population? Indians don’t inbreed like Muslims.
India’s ability distribution must be at least bimodal or trimodal.
your website subtitle should be “the horror of psychology” rather than the reverse!:)
India’s ability distribution must be at least bimodal or trimodal.
It probably depends how mixed together the founding races of India are…the United States is a country with several races/ethnic groups, yet people treat it as just one big bell curve.
your website subtitle should be “the horror of psychology” rather than the reverse!:)
LOL!
Pumpkin I have a question.
Did the heterogenity of a population have an effect on the SD of the IQ distribution ?
Yes, it increases it.
Thanks you for your answer.
So we should expect from the races with more genetic diversity to have an higher SD ?
I think you should write an article about the difference in SD among races because hbd bloggers don’t talk about a lot.
Yes this should be discussed more, because the more highly intelligent races have a greater SD in intelligence, as you would expect if there has been greater and more recent selective pressures in those races. Black SD = 13, Mexican = 14, White = 15, Asian = 16
So we should expect from the races with more genetic diversity to have an higher SD ?
If the genetic diversity causes phenotypic diversity, then yes, but a lot of genetic diversity is just on neutral DNA. Steve Sailer wrote an excellent article about this.
I think you should write an article about the difference in SD among races because hbd bloggers don’t talk about a lot.
They don’t talk about because there’s not much quality data. What race has the biggest SD varies a lot from test to test and from study to study. The preponderance of evidence suggests that white Americans have a larger SD than black Americans, but on the WISC-IV national standardization, blacks had a bigger SD.
It’s much harder to get accurate data on SDs than it is to get accurate data on means, because the former requires you to accurately sample the extremes, while the latter requires only that you sample the typical.
Yes this should be discussed more, because the more highly intelligent races have a greater SD in intelligence, as you would expect if there has been greater and more recent selective pressures in those races.
Or it could just be that in more intelligent races, they sample virtually the entire race, while in less intelligent races, much of the bottom variability is too dysfunctional to be tested.
Pumpkin be careful with the picture of the big assed jawara female !
Your future wife might be jealous !
Lol 😉
The picture you posted is of an Andaman Island Negrito – This is 1500 miles from India and actually close to Indonesia and ended up in India, bcos the British colonised India and Andaman, whereas the Dutch colonised Indonesia – Under normal circumstances, Andaman Island Negritos would have ended up in Indonesia
Next, the split between Andaman Island Negrito and Indian low castes is at least 45000 years – and plenty of time for a lot of evolutionary divergence
Next, PISA is different from a pure IQ test, it also depends on the schooling
India has 2 types of schools, Schools that follow the State Board of the local state and Schools that follow the curriculum of the Central Govt – CBSE schools
In addition, there is a tri-modal IQ distribution based on caste, the low castes – 40%, the mid level castes-40% and the high castes – 20%. There are separate levels of affirmative action quota for the low and mid level castes -About 75% of the Indian population, most of the non-high castes get quota and are genetically not high IQ
The state board schools are based on so called social justice – about 90% of Indians mainly the poor and low to mid castes go to these schools – The offer easy grading – lots of people get A, even low castes and this is used as proof that the IQ gap has ended between high and low castes
About 10% of Indians attend CBSE schools, mostly middle to upper-middle castes, and these have tough grading standards and difficult curriculum and are at international standards , 80% of IIT winners come from CBSE schools
US Indian diaspora is no more than 20% brahmin
Another 15% from Upper caste merchants and 15% from Forward caste dravidians
Rest 40% consists of mid level Aryan peasant castes like Gujurati Patels and Jat Sikhs
( who form 80% of UK diaspora, where they outcompete whites, 45% with college degree vs 30% for white UK )
and about 10% of US Indians come from Caribean and Fiji – mostly low caste untouchable farm labor
If the California National Merit list is decoded by caste name, the following profile is found
45% Brahmin
25% North Indian Aryan merchants and Scribes
20% Forward caste Dravidians
rest 10% has people like Gujurati Patels and Jat Sikhs , who form 40% of the US Indian diaspora
—-
This is 2011 data from Qatar, that has a sizable expat population, here the Indian schools are all CBSE
Qatar School Ranking, top 30 schools out of 153
Mean PISA = 500 = IQ 100
SD PISA = 100 = IQ 15
Interesting data point – the Al Khor company campus offers schools run by GEMS corporation,
1 for children of Indian employees and 1 for children of british employees and the british children score far below the Indian kids, despite both their parents having identical jobs at Al Khor
look at school #1 and #14
Science, Math, Reading scores
—
For comparison Shanghai = 575, 600, 566 = 112 IQ
1. Al-Khor Indian Stream, ( GEMS ) = 566, 592, 604 = 113 IQ = Indian Hindu technicians and Engineers of NGL
2. The International School of Choueifat ( SABIS ) = 554, 562, 565 = 109 IQ = Lebanese Xtian
3. Doha College Private ( British Embassy ) = 572, 553, 563 = 109 IQ = UK
4. DPS Modern Indian School ( Delhi Public School Society ) = 552, 538, 563 = 107 IQ = Indian Hindu
5. Qatar Academy ( US educators ) = 540, 547, 562 = 107 IQ
6. American School of Doha, ( US Embassy ) = 553, 546, 559 = 108 IQ
7. Park House English ( UK ) = 568, 528, 552 = 107 IQ
8. Birla Public School = 586, 539, 549 = 108 IQ = Indian Hindu
9. Qatar Intl Private School ( UK ) = 539, 529, 540 = 105 IQ
10. Al Bayan Girls = 481, 464, 516 = Muslim Arab = 98 IQ
11. Cambridge Intl Private School = 531, 484, 514 = 101 IQ
12. Doha Modern Indian School ( Jai Gopal Jindal ) = 554, 525, 514 = 104 IQ = Indian Hindu
13. Al-Khor British Stream ( GEMS ) = 507, 505, 503 = 102 IQ
14. Dukhan English School ( UK ) = 529, 501, 500 = 102 IQ
15. Debakey High School for Health ( USA ) = 492, 467, 493 = 98 IQ
16. Qatar Canadian School = 451, 456, 491 = 95 IQ
17. MES Indian School ( Muslim Education Society ) = 484, 469, 490 = 97 IQ = Indian Muslim
18. Ideal Indian School Girls, ( Muslim ) = 481, 450, 489 = 96 IQ = Indian Muslim
19. Sudanese School = 463, 411, 488 = 93 IQ , remarkably high for black-arab mullatos
20. Al Arqam = 454, 451, 484 = 95 IQ
21. The Gulf English = 468, 448, 482 = 95 IQ
22. Philipine School = 466, 461, 480 = 96 IQ
23. Jordanian School = 446, 422, 472 = 92 IQ
24. Tunisian School = 459, 436, 463 = 93 IQ
25. Lebanese School ( Muslim ) = 444, 501, 463 = 96 IQ
26. Middle East Intl = 484, 452, 461 = 95 IQ
27. Al Andalus = 446, 397, 454 = 90 IQ
28. Ideal Indian School, boys ( Muslim ) = 462, 465, 453 = 94 IQ = Indian Muslim
29. Egyptian School = 463, 435, 434 = 92 IQ
30. American Academy = 462, 434, 434 = 92 IQ
Qatar, 153 school average = 379, 368, 372 = 81 IQ , and this after being boosted by expat scores
Even some central board schools in india are not upto the mark. I studied in a central board ICSE school and the teachers used to stress so much on rote memorisaton rather than understanding concepts, that it was appalling. And this was one of the top elite schools in my city. The school also won a certificate for its education quality!! Can you believe it?
Pumpkin, what do you think the cause is that negros can’t trust or get along with whites, but the whites still want to help them despite all that?
Like, look at this image:
LOL !
That’s so ironic.
US blacks are less evolved than whites so where is the surprise ?
There always will be people to help chimpanzees, and there always be chimpanzees attacking people.
So dude, it seem like you are hating on blacks people, so by the same reasonning you should hate these fucking chimpanzees who are killing people trying to help them ?
No, because you are a 100 IQ white guy who is intersted in HBD only because it say that blacks are less evolved than whites.
These kind of “emotionnal” comments considerably decreased the intellectual quality of the comment section of this blog.
I’m really tired of these unscientifics conservatives dumbfucks…
In all races, there are people motivated to help the less fortunate, either because they’re genuinely compassionate, or because it behooves their self-esteem, status or brings meaning to their life. Blacks are less fortunate than whites so some whites help them. No one is less fortunate than blacks, so blacks help themselves.
Also, many whites are so priveliged that they have the luxury of helping blacks, because blacks are no real competetion for money or status. But blacks are distrustful of this condescending help because they know that those same liberal whites who are helping them up, will be the first to kick them down if they rise too high.
The most caucasoid group in India is the Jat caste. with 75% ANI ( Ancestral North India / caucasoid )
Most of the Sikhs are Jat caste – There is a whole genre of dumb Sikh jokes
In many states in India, Jats have been included in the affirmative action quota list for OBC ( Other backward castes / mid level castes ) , meaning they cant compete against high castes in competitive exams – so here you have the most caucasoid caste in India, needing quota crutch against less caucasoid castes
Pakistan is on the whole much more caucasoid than India , and they score really lousy in the diaspora and in International Math Olympiad vs India
It is not just how much caucasoid a South Asian country is, but rather the caste – very few brahmins and merchants ( the higher IQ segment ) converted to Islam, and Islamic Pakistan and Bangladesh essentially lack Brahmins and Merchant castes
If you look at average performance in International Math Olympiad over the last 10 years – average rank from the top – India = 30 ; Bangladesh = 65 ; Pakistan = 85 ; Pakistan is the most caucasoid and the most dumb
But India has a bigger population from which to select talent
Silly racists keep thinking like 19th century race-science apes and pushing your inverted worldview that Caucasoid = high iq ubermensch everyone is stupid while the reality is all races are almost equally intelligent given good nutrition. Yes, blacks tend to be an outlier but again, there maybe other social causes for that.
Most Indians in the west tend to have equal (UK – 98) or superior (USA – 110) IQ than the native predominantly caucasian population. The ones in the UK aren’t even descended from a population known for intelligence in India, so tell me how Indians in the UK score on par with whites in non-verbal and only slightly below whites on verbal. I don’t really want to include the US immigrants here since they tend to be from pre-selected populace of university educated people who’re generally +15 of their native population and it stands to reason their descendents have lost about 5 IQ because of mean reversion effects than the expected 115.
So this post is trying to predict IQ based on (among other things like nutrition) population admixture.
Here is my problem with this post. Do you realize that Europeans are a mix of Neolithic farmers who brought farming to Europe from the middle east, and indigenous hunter gathers? Were indigenous hunter gathers less intelligent than neolithic farmers who invaded most of Europe, from North to South? Because neolithic ancestry is more dominant in Southern Europe.
Both Indians and Europeans are an ancient “mix”. Depending on the region (in case of Europe and to some extent, India) or caste, one ancestry dominates the other.
One could make the argument that the hunter gatherers of Europe and the hunter gathers of India were in a similar predicament, as they both got dominated by near-eastern farmers.
Please read these two papers 1) Haak et al (2015) and 2)Lazaridis et al (2014).
You will then realize how mixed Europeans are (and all humans are).
There was a paper that came out recently about Japan that clearly shows that ancient Japanese were more shifted towards Papuans. So clearly, they have some “Australoid”-like ancestry.
Yet, the Japanese have pretty high IQ. From what I can gather, probably higher than the purer Chinese.
What we need to look at is positive selection. Tamil Brahmins have higher ASI (ancestral South Indian) or “Australoid” than certain North Indian groups, yet the belief is they are very intelligent. So just because a group has higher “Australoid” ancestry does not mean that they will automatically have lower IQ.
Here is my problem with this post. Do you realize that Europeans are a mix of Neolithic farmers who brought farming to Europe from the middle east, and indigenous hunter gathers?
How long ago?
Were indigenous hunter gathers less intelligent than neolithic farmers who invaded most of Europe, from North to South?
Quite possibly. I believe for a brief period of history, non-white caucasoids were genetically smarter than whites, because some IQ enhancing mutation may have originated in the middle east giving proto-Arabs a brief advantage before other races acquired it.
No those neolithic middle easterners had access to the tools needed to create farming 1st ie: Domesticable crops. There’s a reason civilization sprang up 1st in South Asia,The middle East & North Africa….domesticable crops & animals are native to those regions. The bread,cows,pigs,sheep & goats that keep our modern world fed are all native to those regions. Those fortunate enough to have those things nearby or brought in benifited greatly from them. No bloody IQ advantage in none of these instances…past or present. Just groups of people exposed to the things needed to create higher civilization. In all these high IQ regions the people’s were surrounded by domesticable crops & animals & or soon had them brought in. Agriculture leads to civilization & civilization leads to modernity which iq test actually test for. The higher the level of modernity the higher the level of IQ thus rural & urban peoples with the same genetic make up test differently on these test. The one exception are Han-Chinese people but these people speak & more importantly write a logo-graphic language & in large follow cultural philosophies that emphasize study & learning. No other group mimics this except…yes our Ashkenazi Jewish friends(minus the logo graphic language).
“There was a paper that came out recently about Japan that clearly shows that ancient Japanese were more shifted towards Papuans. So clearly, they have some “Australoid”-like ancestry.”
I hope you do realize that the “ancient Japanese” have pretty much all been displaced by constant migration from East Asians from the Korean peninsula and from China? Same thing also happened to Taiwan; thousands of years of East Asian migration pretty much wiped out the entire indigenous Australoid population.
This is an interesting blog. What I’d like to point out, however, is that there is quite a bit of misinformation regarding the genetic makeup/ancestry of races and ethnic groups/castes found in India on this blog. I noticed you implied in some of your posts here that Indians are hybrid population between two groups, one most similar to present-day non-White Caucasoids, and one most similar to Australian Aboriginals — this is pseudoscience and completely inaccurate. Let me explain what the genetic/latest research has actually shown, as far as India’s demographics, and the genetic composition of its castes is concerned. What follows is a detailed explanation of South Asian genetics and therefore, I must warn you, it is a long wall of text, but completely accurate and supported by the latest research, despite containing a lot of jargon that may give you a headache. Bear with me here.
Indians are composed of two composite groups: ANI or the Ancestral North Indians, a group which itself is a composite of two or more different Caucasoid populations, that are on average, closest to present-day Georgians in genetic makeup, and ASI, or the Ancestral South Indians, a group which is also a composite of two or more different populations, at least half of which is Caucasoid in nature, with the other half varying in composition from one ethnic group to another; in other words, while ANI is completely Caucasoid in nature, ASI is 50-60% Caucasoid in nature, depending on the caste in question, and the remainder of ASI ancestry is either composed of Mongoloid, proto-Mongoloid, proto-Caucasoid or in exceptionally rare, isolated cases like the Paniya tribe of South India, of proto-Australoid-like ancestry, which still isn’t the same as having Australoid ancestry. Keep in mind that Australoids themselves are at least 80% Mongoloid in genetic makeup and are considered to be archaic Whites themselves. They are also the furthest group genetically on Earth, from the Negroids/Congoids/Bantuids of Sub-Saharan Africa. So, apart from a minority of untouchables of South India and parts of East India, who are not even a part of the Caste system to begin with, NO other group in South Asia has any proto-Australoid-like admixture to speak of. And Indians are predominantly Caucasoid and group with other Caucasoids according to every genetic test/anthropometric study since the dawn of time. More information:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Neighbor-joining_Tree.svg
http://archive.org/stream/racesofeurope031695mbp#page/n529/mode/2up
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/are-the-people-of-india-caucasians-yes/
It is crucial to remember that Indians have nothing to do with Australoids — those people are completely different apart from a very few isolated tribes in India that have real proto-Australoid-like admixture due to their status and extreme isolation, and this admixture has nothing to do with ASI admixture — ASI is just like the paleolithic ANE influence in Europeans, and half of it is Caucasian (at least half, if not more, it varies for different people in India) and it is a composite just like ANI is, with different components for different people/castes in India. The Reich et al paper even pointed out that the Onge were at BEST, a poor proxy to get something without ANI admixture, and little ASI admixture, and even then, it was a worse proxy than the Han Chinese. In other words, East Asians were a better proxy than the Onge themselves. The reason they picked the Onge as a (poor) proxy was because they were the only group they could find in that region without ANI admixture, and because they are such an old population that has been isolated and separated from mainland populations for a very long period of time; they also have very few individuals left, so owing to the problems of genetic drift, they assume ownership of a component and the admixture program tries to force the Onge component in an admixture model of South Asians. In more recent papers, this has been clarified further and it has been stated that they were simply making a poor guess when using the Onge as a proxy in the model.
More information here: http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/39141-ASI-%28ancestral-south-indian%29-is-not-related-to-Onge-negritos-australoids?p=1050864&viewfull=1#post1050864
and
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/39141-ASI-%28ancestral-south-indian%29-is-not-related-to-Onge-negritos-australoids?p=1061499&viewfull=1#post1061499
Furthermore, to illustrate just how poor of a guess it was, they pointed out that ASI is massively separated from the Onge; in fact, ASI is just as far from the Onge as the Utah Whites (a group of random Euro-descent samples from Utah in the States) are from the Onge, indicating that ASI is as related to Onge as Utah Whites are. More here: http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/39141-ASI-%28ancestral-south-indian%29-is-not-related-to-Onge-negritos-australoids?p=1054161&viewfull=1#post1054161
Papuans and Onge have no relation to India at all — the Onge are in SE Asia. Han are a much better proxy. In addition, Indians lack Denisovan admixture and other crucial haplogroups found commonly in the Onge as well. It must also be said that if Indians are erroneously assumed to have proto-Australoid-like ancestry, so are Europeans. You might be under the false assumption that Europeans are somehow a “pure” Caucasoid population, when in fact that couldn’t be further from the truth. Not only has the latest genetic research conclusively shown that Europeans are all admixed to different degrees between AT LEAST four main populations of people: West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), Early European Farmer (EEF), Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG), and Ancient North Eurasian (ANE).
More at link: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html
It has also conclusively shown that ALL populations of Europeans and other “White” Caucasoids have significant to HUGE amounts of non-Caucasoid ancestry due to the fact that the ANE/Ancient North Eurasian component is at least 45% East Asian/Mongoloid in ancestry. The ANE component is based on the genome of the infamous Mal’ta boy or MA-1 (see here). In Europe today it peaks among Estonians at just over 18%, and, intriguingly, reaches a similar level among Scots. Finns, Russians and Mordovians, also carry very high ANE, in addition to very high amounts of much more recent Siberian admixture. What’s even more interesting is that this ANE influence is the very influence found among South Asians, albeit in a slightly different variety known as ASI. Here is a graph explaining this in a simple manner: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b_OUyvAOJfo/UH6mOGV0OII/AAAAAAAAG9U/tP3lG_BxQ20/s640/tangledweb.gif
What the aforementioned information means is the following: Indians are NOT a hybrid population between Caucasoids and Australoids. In reality, the vast majority of Indians are an admixed population between Caucasoids and Mongoloids — except in this case, the Mongoloids are most similar in phenotype and genotype to SE Asians like the Thai. According to the latest research, the average Indian is at least 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian — these figures have been substantiated by multiple reports, including the National Geographic Project’s Geno 2.0 DNA ancestry test samples, the 23andme test samples, and even the Reich et. al paper published in the highly-cited/high impact factor scientific journal Nature. It has been conclusively proven that South Asians/Indians range from 5-10% Asian to 35% Asian, or in other words, from 65% Caucasian to 95% Caucasian. The most Caucasian people are from the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, and the least Caucasian people are from the east and south. Only one person broke the magic 35% barrier, and he was a Bangladeshi (38%). If you’d like a layman’s interpretation of the data in the aforementioned sources, check out this article by Razib Khan, one of the pioneers in the field of population genetics, particularly as it pertains to the archaeogenetics of South Asia as a whole — he writes articles for Discover Magazine, which is a well respected source. He is also a PhD student at UC Davis. Here is a post describing the general findings of genetic research into South Asian populations: http://genomesunzipped.org/2011/02/guest-post-by-razib-khan-my-personal-genome.php
In addition to the Reich et. al paper, and other landmark papers in this field, the Harappa Ancestry Project (link to the project: http://www.harappadna.org/2012/05/harappaworld-admixture/), which is helmed by a genetic expert, and is working in combination with Reich’s data, is also another landmark study into the archaeogenetics of South Asia. It has conclusively proven and further substantiated the results I aforementioned. According to the samples collected by the project, there is a sharp correlation between Caste/Location and Caucasian ancestry in India, with the upper castes in all parts of India being significantly more Caucasian in nature than the lower castes, and the North-West Indian/South Asian upper Castes being the most Caucasian of all — up to 95%. All of the North-West Indian/Pakistani/Nepali/Afghani upper castes are between 5-18% admixed with East Eurasians/Mongoloids; in other words all of them are between 82-95% Caucasian. These castes would include the Rajputs, Jatts, Khatris, Gujjars, Sindhis, Brahmins, Bhumihars, Balochis, Brahuis, and certain upper caste Punjabis, and Pathans. Note that this is only applicable to the upper castes aforementioned that are in the North and North-West of India, as well as Pakistan and Nepal. As for the rest of India (and Bangladesh/Sri Lanka), as I mentioned earlier, the average South Asian is 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian, so a good amount of South Asians are more Caucasian than 75%, and a good amount are less Caucasian.
For instance, the average Tamil (from South India, and well represented in the diaspora in the USA as the “typical Indian” stereotype) is 33-34% non-Caucasian, and the average Bengali/Bangaladeshi is closer to 55-60% Caucasian. The dalits of Tamil Nadu (also well represented in the States) or the lowest caste Tamils, are at least 40% non-Caucasian. The lowest castes of India, the Chamars, who are found all over India, (also in the States) are also in the 50-60% Caucasian range. Upper Caste Indians in the rest of India (apart from the North-West) tend to be 70-80% Caucasian. If you’d like to see the data for yourself, here is the link to the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l87nGSIYTP-h7m-VKjB-BZcuEoWdz765nU4f_krOdd4/edit?pli=1#gid=0
For reference, the “South Indian” component is 50-60% Caucasian, and the ANE/NE Asian component is 45% non-Caucasian. The SE Asian, Siberian, Papuan, American and Beringian components are all Mongoloid in nature, and the E African, San, Pygmy and W African components are all Negroid in nature. Keep in mind that the data here is accurate only for South Asians, other regions are too under sampled in the project.
Now you might be wondering, if South Asians, particularly the upper castes in the North and North-West, are between 5-18% admixed, are they alone in this predicament? As I alluded to earlier, they are anything BUT alone. Lets start with Middle Easterners and Northern Africans. Egyptians, Moroccans, Libyans, and other North Africans are on AVERAGE, 15% Black/Negroid admixed. In fact, according to the latest research, the average North African is 15-16% black, and individual countries like Egypt and Tunisia are 18-21% Black on AVERAGE — so some would be MORE than 21% black, some less. The highest admixture is found among Moroccans and Berbers who can be up to 30% Black/Negroid admixed ON AVERAGE. As far as the Middle East goes, Yemeni people have been shown to be 18-19% black ON AVERAGE, and the Bedouin tribes have been shown to be 16-18% Black on average as well. Qataris are 12-16% Black, and Saudi Arabians range from 14-18% black as well, on average. Jews, particularly the Ashkenazim, have also been shown to be 16.5% admixed with Mongoloid and Black/Negroid on average. So on average, MENA people are 75-85% Caucasoid and 15-25% Black/Negroid admixed, therefore its safe to say that MENA people are Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids, with some groups being more Negroid than Caucasoid. All these figures have been collected by National Geographic and many other researchers, but I’ll give you a link to the Nat Geo data here: https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/category/raceethnicity/central-asians/
As far as West Asians/Central Asians are concerned, they show significant amounts of Mongoloid admixture on average.Tajiks have 15% Mongoloid admixture on average, while Turkmens have 16% Mongoloid admixture on average; However, some groups of Turkmen average 27% Mongoloid, and some are 35 – 56% Mongoloid. Southern Turkmens on average are only 1/8 to 1/3 Mongoloid or better said 13-31% Mongoloid. However in some parts of Turkmenenistan, like the Northern and Eastern parts, the Mongoloid DNA reaches 33-55% Other parts of Turkmenistan are 33-55% Mongoloid. Even Turkish many people are 10-20% Mongoloid, and 15% Mongoloid on average. Iranians are also Mongoloid admixed — up to 10% on average, with the Azeris of Iran being even more admixed. Tatars are 16% Mongoloid admixed on average. So, its safe to say that most West Asian groups are a hybrid of Mongoloids and Caucasoids, with some leaning more towards Mongoloid, and being on average, 80-85% Caucasian, and 15-20% Mongoloid, with some groups being much less Caucasian and much more Mongoloid.
Now, lets look at the European data. All non-Sardinian Europeans have been shown to have significant amounts of ANE ancestry due to the Malt’a boy mentioned earlier, and this ANE ancestry is related to/is the same as ASI ancestry in South Asians, relating Europeans to Amerindians and East Asians. The ANE component is composed of 45% Mongoloid and Australoid-like ancestry (similar to the distant relation that some South Asians have to proto-Australoids), and the Malt’a boy also has a proto-Australoid ASE component on the order of 10%.
This ANE component peaks in the Karitiana Indians of South America: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-EiT2DbpCI90/VA5ZPZgLHmI/AAAAAAAABVI/iSDLST-Boic/w1001-h199-no/Table_S14.12.png
More info about ANE’s relationship to ASI is available at this link: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-tangled-web-of-humanity.html
Which itself references this landmark paper: http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037
It is also pertinent to point out the fact that ANE ancestry in all Europeans with the exception of Sardinians (who have very minor ANE ancestry) is mostly (45-55%) non-Caucasoid in nature, and DOES NOT include SEPARATE, ADDITIONAL East Asian ancestry that is due to much more recent admixture with Mongoloids due to the Golden Horde and other admixture events. ANE or NE Asian is best thought of as very ancient Asian admixture, while the recent admixture is added separately. A recent landmark paper definitively showed a clear signal of admixture in Northern Europe, represented by the ANE/NE Asian component. Here is the link to the paper: http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037.abstract and here is a link to the layman’s explanation of it: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/09/across-the-sea-of-grass-how-northern-europeans-got-to-be-10-northeast-asian/#.Ve77Xs44JNY
What this paper definitively shows (as do successive papers recently released after it) is that Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have huge amounts of NE Asian, also known as ANE, admixture. This is because they are descended in part from an Amerindian population. What is the actual amount? Well, remember that ANE or NE Asian is made up of two components — one is Caucasian in nature and related to Levantine ancestry, and the other is related to NE Asia/Siberians and the American Indians, peaking in the Karitiana Indians of South America. Therefore,
according to the research data in the latest papers, Northern Europeans are 5-18% admixed with Mongoloids, or in other words, Northern Europeans are 5-18% Non-Caucasoid, and the authors pointed out that this is actually a conservative estimate, one that is lower than what the actual value is likely to be — which is purported to be even higher than the 5-18% range, easily crossing over into the 10-20%+ non-Caucasoid range.
Keeping in mind that in Europe, among Lezgins and Chechens and Ossetians. ANE is in the 23-27%+ range, this means that other Eastern Europeans, not residing in Northern Europe, are also heavily admixed with non-Caucasian ANE ancestry as well. The ANE ancestry is 45% East Asian/Amerindian in composition, and 10% SE Asian in ancestry, so 55% non-Caucasian and ANE ancestry ranges from 8-21%+ in almost all Europeans except Sardinians. A table with ANE scores from a recent paper: http://i.imgur.com/R70lWOG.png Remember how I mentioned earlier that this ANE non-Caucasoid ancestry did NOT include additional, more recent, non-Caucasoid East Asian ancestry? Well lets take a look at that data as well. Russians and Finns, are 80-88% Caucasian depending on the person (NOT including non-Caucasoid ANE admixture, which would make them even less Caucasoid) because of much more recent East Asian admixture and the areas with the higher non-Caucasian mixture in the 12-20% range is around Leningrad and other areas around Russia. Finnish people, according to the latest genetic study, are AT LEAST 13 to 17% East Asian, and Russians, according to the latest genetic study, are 12 to 18% East Asian. More info here: https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/mongoloid-admixture-in-russians/
Lithuanians and Swedes are at least 10%-20% admixed with recent East/Mongoloid mixture. If we add this recent Mongoloid admixture to the more ancient ANE ancestry in Europeans, we get the following numbers: Russians and Finns and Swedes are 17-30% Mongoloid/Non-Caucasoid and 70-83% Caucasoid. Because of this, Finns have been found to be distinct from other Europeans and don’t cluster as close to them. Russians in the North are much the same way. Therefore we can sum up the above with the following three sentences:
Proto West Eurasians + ANE/ASI-like = Europeans and Latin Americans
Proto West Eurasians + ASI /ANE-like= South Asians and Central and West Asians
Proto West Eurasians + African = Middle Easterners and Northern Africans
And since everyone in these regions can be as much as 30% non-Caucasoid due to either Mongoloid or Negroid ancestry, (but closer to 20-25% non-Caucasoid) Indians are definitely not alone in being admixed Caucasoids on this planet. They are actually part of the norm, being on average, 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian, So the next time you present Indians as being unique in being admixed, or Europeans as being unique in being pure, think again — for that has no basis in reality. The data clearly shows that Indians are as admixed as other Caucasian groups throughout the world, and in some causes, purer, particularly in the case of the upper Caste North and North-West Indians, who are at most, 18% admixed or less, and thus 82-95% Caucasian.
Therefore, Indian IQ is not a mystery or an enigma — it is in fact perfectly within line of their Eurasian ancestry that is predominantly European in nature, as it is for most Europeans and Near Easterners and Northern Africans. One could say that it hasn’t reached its full potential yet, for its not yet at the very least, equal to average IQ in European nations.
Thats alot of gymnastics in order to jump around the Austroloid dna East Indians both north & south posess. East Indians have little to no Mongoloid dna. The Harrapan civilization predates the Arya invasion/migration The DNA links your ancestors to the ancestors of the Bay of Bengal & Adaman Islanders. Those islands & the Indian subcontinent environments differ in one crucial way. Domesticable animals/crops & the ability to create large scale agriculture. Is it so hard to believe an Austroloid peoples exposed to the tools needed to create civilization did so?
There’s currently a discussion on reddit where people are discussing this article and several others. Just thought you might like to know, Pumpkin Person.
PP, Continue this article of yours. You said in your last para ”Yet another possibility is that India’s IQ is indeed much lower than reported, but the lower caste, and most tribal low IQ peoples of India are not accessible to psychologists giving IQ tests.” You ruled out 82, and 101. So how much could it be?
Eugenist study… DNA + malnutrition = out of logic.
The intuitives and abstract thinkers promoted by religion can explain a lot. The culture stands for spirituality, where the “signs”, concepts and “symbols” are developted more than sensorial cultures.
It would have been easier to comment if the article had included the following:
1. The sample size on the basis of which the ‘average’ IQ has been calculated.
2. The geographical spread and the income level distribution amongst the candidates.
3. The norming standards.
4. How was the sample selected?
5. Nature of test – non-verbal or language based?
We at Mensa India conduct a fairly large number of tests in different geographical areas and for people with different income levels. These tests are pictorial and culture fair and have been normed over a fairly large sample size (about 10,000 candidates for each test). However, I would not be able to hazard a guess for the average IQ based on this because, for an extremely diverse population of 1.3 billion, our tests merely touch the tip of the iceberg.
We have noticed extremely high IQ amongst some in tribal populations and even among the underprivileged urban populations and, sometimes surprisingly low IQ in the well-to-do candidates. Nourishment does play a part but we notice that this becomes acute as the child grows up. The earlier we catch them, the better the results. Another noticeable factor is exposure to new ideas amongst the rural population as compared to those studying in good schools. This affects the creativity more than the IQ even though, in their own way, many in rural areas are also very creative, especially till they are in their teens.
Data was made on 2006, the time period when India’s per capita GDP was very low, and considered very poor, take the IQ test now, and it will in top 10 countries, it is asian genes to be highly intelligent, the poverty is what prohibiting Indians to score higher. According to the data by Richard Lynn (who organised the IQ tests) said himself that IQ is related to the wealth of country.
Or math that assumes multiple genes of fractional intelligence doesn’t work because it’s not true but i guess hbders don’t go that far. Le cope.