I analyzed the racial background of the 20 U.S. physicists to win a Nobel prize in the 21st century, and found that 15% are East Asian, despite the fact that East Asians are only 3.62% of the U.S. population. This undermines the claim that East Asians lack originality.
Jews did even better. Despite being 2% of America, they are 30% of its 21st century Nobel physicists.
The remaining 55% of 21st century U.S. Nobel physicists are white.
It is interesting to ask what, if anything, this racial breakdown tells us about the IQs of Nobel physicists. Although U.S. Jews have an average IQ of 110, if the correlation between IQ and race were perfect, Jews would average 130. That’s expected because the correlation between IQ and race is 0.43, so 0.43 standardized regression slope means Jews are only about 43% as far above the U.S. mean of 96 as they would be if the correlation were 1.0.
Similarly, if the correlation between IQ and race were perfect, East Asian Americans would have an IQ of 115 instead of 104, and Whites would have an IQ of 106 instead of 100.
Since East Asians, Jews and whites are 15%, 30% and 55% of Nobel physicists respectively, if IQ and race were perfectly correlated, the average Nobel physicist would have an IQ of:
0.15(115) + 0.3(130) + 0.55(106) = 115
An IQ of 115 is 19 points above the U.S. mean of 96. Of course race and IQ are not correlated perfectly. As mentioned above race correlates 0.43 with IQ and probably 0.48 with g (the general factor of intelligence).
So people selected based on g (among other traits) will regress to the U.S. mean on “race IQ” via the 0.48 regression slope. So if they are 19 points above the U.S. mean on “race IQ”, they would be 19/0.48 = 40 IQ points above the U.S. mean on g.
But since IQ tests only correlate 0.9 with g, they’re likely 0.9(40) = 36 points above the U.S. mean of 96 on IQ, which means the average Nobel physicist should have an IQ of 132.
I’m not saying that is the IQ of Nobel physicists, I’m just saying it’s what we should expect based on the fact that they are 30% Jewish, 15% East Asian and 55% White. But it’s likely an underestimate because the average IQ of physics PhDs has got to be close to 130. For the top physicists in America to score no higher would imply zero correlation between IQ and job performance among physicists, which sounds impossible.
Also, we know from the Roe study that physicists and other elite scientists averaged IQ above 155, though that was in the 1950s when academia was more meritocratic. Still, it’s doubtful their IQ could have dropped that much in the last half century.
I suspect that my race analysis might have underestimated Nobel physicist IQ because although both Jews and East Asians are dramatically overrepresented, they could have been even more so because:
1) although Jews have high overall IQs, they are more verbally oriented, so their overrepresentation is much more extreme in business and especially media than it is in science, so physicists don’t have as many Jews as occupations that actually shape the culture.
2) East Asians would be even more overrepresented but their extreme mental stability and cautious temperament limits creativity, and Ivy League discrimination against East Asians limits how many can dominate in academic fields.
I don’t know what you conclude that because new average american iq is 96, jews and east asian improve their respective iq scores while blacks and latin americans decrease their respective iq scores, considerably, i don’t know.
I think average iq of jews and east asians in Uass will be reduced because demographich changes. Ortodoxh jews have more children than secular (outbred) jews which is marrying out of peoplehood. East asians are marrying out of race, have lower fertility rates (specially with educated ones**) and have less selective immigration because more parity of the standard living between China and US.
I don’t think Jews, East Asians, blacks or Hispanics have changed scores. When I said Jews had an IQ of 130 I was referring to the scores Jews would have if the correlation between race and IQ was perfect. Their actual IQ is 110.
Similarly, if there were a perfect correlation between IQ and race, the average black would have an IQ of 70 (instead of 85).
This is an imaginary exercise done for statistical purposes.
And I use a scale where the average white American (no matter how smart or stupid he becomes) is ASSIGNED an IQ of 100. So the U.S. mean will change depending on how many immigrants are smarter or dumber than the average white, but the average white will always be defined as 100 because he’s the reference point.
Average iq 100 is not a white Standard, but middle class first world standard. Average iq of white americans, you know, is between 102 and 104.
Millionaires are not representative of any population. But, the average iq score of self made minor millionaries is around 110-120, then the correlation seems to be higher for American indians and jews. But (2), to be part of a endogamic and smart minority may have greater advantage than to be part of of a white crowd with individualistic mentality.
This comparison between ”perfect” average iq and outliers groups seems meaningless. The correlation between iq and races is perfect without this pseudo-super-precision. Is perfect because, in scholastic context, the races with higher iqs, dominate science, ashkenazis and indians (107,), east asians and white americans, specially, the native white americans, by pisa results, have very similar scores. And social network, important predicative in a extravert society, as very important to the success of some groups.
To be a self made billionary you need specific intelligence, psychopathic traits and make ”friends” ( business& favours) within super exclusive social circle. Most of ”self made” of billionaries aren’t literally self made.
“specific intelligence” yes, you need high social intelligence but you need also high general intelligence.
Average iq 100 is not a white Standard, but middle class first world standard. Average iq of white americans, you know, is between 102 and 104.
It depends. Many tests set the mean of all Americans at 100, in which case the white mean is 102-104, depending on the quantity and quality of non-white Americans, but traditionally, and in the scientific literature, the mean of whites is set at 100, and the mean of all Americans is then 96-98. This is a better way of doing it because then an IQ of 100 reflects the same level of genetic ability, regardless of the number of immigrants, at least in theory (though there are strong counter-arguments involving dysgenics and reaction norms)
The correlation between iq and races is perfect without this pseudo-super-precision. Is perfect because, in scholastic context, the races with higher iqs, dominate science, ashkenazis and indians (107,), east asians and white americans, specially, the native white americans, by pisa results, have very similar scores.
A perfect correlation between IQ and race would mean you could tell who would score higher with 100% accuracy just by looking at race. The correlation is nowhere near perfect.
To be a self made billionary you need specific intelligence,
And you need general intelligence, because you must be good at many things to be a billionaire and you must avoid making many different kinds of mistakes
psychopathic traits and make ”friends” ( business& favours) within super exclusive social circle. Most of ”self made” of billionaries aren’t literally self made.
They’re self-made in the sense that they had the skills to make those exclusive friends themselves; they weren’t born with connections like old money is.
“specific intelligence” yes, you need high social intelligence but you need also high general intelligence.
I’m not even sure you need high social intelligence to be a billionaire. Bill Gates doesn’t strike me as having a high social IQ, though he’d probably be even richer if he did, because failing to make connections in Washington seriously derailed Microsoft’s profits when the anti-trust case was made against him.
But several high tech gazillionaires are suspected of having aspergers.
I think the selections of the Nobel committee have to be taken with a grain of salt. Science is no different from other disciplines (as far as awards are concerned), where those who are associated with a development are often simply those who tout their ideas aggressively. So we should not assume that the ones with original ideas are just those who toot their horn. In other words, many quiet types are overlooked precisely because they are quiet-not because they don’t invent anything.
This ties directly to what you’ve said about the temperamental qualities of East Asians. Caltech biophysicist Norman Davidson once said that Louise Chow should have gotten the Nobel for the discovery of split genes, but was overlooked: “She’s a woman, an Asian woman, who’s a little quiet. Sometimes they get ignored.” Famous Nobelist James Watson (who discovered the structure of DNA) said “Louise did it and it’s terrible she didn’t win”. A similar thing probably happened in 2010: Andre Geim, who won the Nobel in physics, said in his Nobel speech that he owed Philip Kim ” a great deal for this…and would be honored to share it with him.” Sure, the Nobel committee is often second-guessed, but in both cases the awards were accompanied by an unusual amount of support for those who were overlooked.
So the fact that E Asians seem to be quiet and low-profile does not necessarily mean they aren’t doing anything important; it just explains why we don’t hear from them-because they’re quiet! Still, with over a dozen Nobels handed out to Japanese scientists in the 21st century, it seems like they’re learning how to get their research out in the open
This is very true.
Yes you could be right. The person who gets credit for the idea is often not the person who originally conceived it, but rather the person who did the work to publish it, followed by the necessary self-promotion
But as flawed as the Nobel Prize might be as a measure of academic accomplishment at the highest level, it’s one of the few measures we have.
Yes that’s true. Not everyone who deserves a Nobel gets one (for one thing, so few are given out), but the screening process is very rigorous, so those lucky enough to shake hands with the King and Queen of Sweden likely deserve that privilege. More standardized measures like getting into a top public university like U Michigan or even earning a PhD might be more objective, but they aren’t good screens for true talent and originality. One of the best implicit screens for the Nobel is passage of time, which allows the full import of a discovery to become manifest.
After what I first said about the Nobels, it might sound like I’m contradicting myself. I guess what I’m saying is that having a highly subjective component doesn’t make the selection process unmeritocratic. Those who do get the early morning call come October are probably deserving, though others who deserve to share in this recognition are often ignored.
Speaking of Japanese Nobels (see prev comment), this shows that one should exercise caution when drawing conclusions about Nobels and demographics. At 1/12 the population of China, Japan has collected 14 Nobel science prizes in the 21st century, while China has gotten zero. So it’s hard to underestimate political and economic factors. Research takes money. And time. Cultural issues? If anything, the Japanese are more quiet and deferential than the Chinese (ever been to a Chinatown? Lots of loud, brash types, who are quick to remind you -correctly- that they invented paper, printing, gunpowder, guns, the compass, seismograph, etc. Gee, thanks for the guns.)
Han Chinese still have an higher average IQ than Japanese.
Of course, by ‘brash’ I am speaking in relative terms; Asians don’t have an equivalent of a Trump or Mark Cuban among their super rich or a Richard Pryor among their entertainers. Still, the Chinese do seem a bit more outspoken than the Japanese, which I’m guessing is grounded in recent historical issues.
The intelligence of Jews is absolutely overrated. If you look at the performance of American students in science and engineering competitions in the U.S. The Jews are underrepresented by a factor of 100 or more relative to Asians. Yeah, sure Jews won a lot of Nobel Prizes, but you need to realize that less than 5% of Whites went to get a bachelor in the 40s and most Chinese and Indians at that time were uneducated people who came here to do manual work. Now, that the competition has intensified, we see that they can’t compete. Also, the Nobel Prize is possibly the worst measurement a person can use, I rather hot papers or highly cited papers as it is not as politically biased.
So you don’t believe the IQ research showing Ashkenazi Jews are the smartest race?
asd might be right. Although this is anecdotal which seems supported by everyone I know but at the elementary school level, east asians and indians far surpass white and jews. This is where preparation is irrelevant since environment is minimal at 5 years of age.
But, it shows how much environment affect success.
Look at India which is still a 3rd world country. And, China which is light years behind western countries. Obviously the political system (whiich is luck) has a huge effect.
And, I’m theorizing that Jews do have higher IQ among westerners, they were able to excel. Also, since they LOOK like other white people, it’s easier for them to assimilate and take the top management spots. In the 1930’s, they even looked different but they were discriminated against merely due to their last name. Think about how this bias would affect asians that look different. Asians pervade management everywhere but it’s been shown that they are lagging at the very top. And, I’m guessing it’s due to the fact that they don’t look like the majority. The personality of being reserved might also have something to do with it. I have no idea…
As an aside, I think IQ is a poor proxy for intelligence. It’s probably the best so far but my hunch is intelligence consists of many different factors like athleticism. You can make extremely fast computations, or you can have great short-term memory, or great long-term memory…I think they are somewhat related but different components to intelligence. Physiologically, better arrangement of neurons might lead to faster computations. Larger number of neurons lead to better short term memory (which might lead to better critical reasoning like logic or lead to pattern recognition).
I’m saying this because even if asians score high in IQ tests, it doesn’t necessarily they have the specific intelligence components that are important.
Pingback: Will American Science Stay On Top? - Is It 2020 Yet?
Pingback: Will American Science Stay On Top? – USSA News | The Tea Party's Front Page
Pingback: Will American Science Stay On Top? – Liberty Community
Pingback: Will American Science Stay On Top? | Pratik Chougule