You ask important questions.

The most thorough study of IQ averages of different nations that I am aware of is Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations, by Richard Lynn. Richard Lynn is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster. These averages are estimates based on what Professor Lynn was able to find about various IQ testing in the various countries. The test results for the same country were not always identical. One testing might have involved 10,000 test takers and given an average of 102. Another might have involved 20,000 test takers, and given an average of 100. Nevertheless, there was a fairly close correlation between testings within a country.

Professor Lynn acknowledges that IQ is influenced by standard of living. However he claims that standard of living is more influenced by IQ than the other way around. For example, the average for South Korea is 106. The standard of living in South Korea is high by international standards. However, at the end of the Second World War it was one of the lowest in the world. He argues that the main reason for the rise in the South Korean standard of living has been the high average IQ of South Korean people.

The standard of living in North Korea is much lower than it is in South Korea, for reasons you and I will agree on, clarise. IQ scores for North Koreans either do not exist, or they cannot be trusted because of the dictatorship there.

The average for China is 100. The average for the United States, where the standard of living is (so far) much higher is 98. The highest average is 107 for Hong Kong, as you pointed out. This can be explained by the fact that for decades intelligent Chinese moved to Hong Kong because the economic opportunities were better there.

My guess is that inhabitants in mainland China have the potential to rise in average IQ, while inhabitants of the United States do not. We know that Chinese immigrants to the United States usually perform well in school. My explanation for the high IQ's of Chinese, and the higher still potential of the Chinese is the Imperial Exam System. For about 2,000 years Chinese males born to humble circumstances who passed the exams entered the Scholar Gentry. They were given generous incomes. They were expected to have several wives and many children.

Civilization usually breeds people for higher intelligence, although not as intensely as the Imperial Exam System. Intelligent men have generally been more prosperous, so they have usually had more descendents.

I am not quite sure why South Korea and Japan have higher averages than every European country, and in every country settled by Europeans. It may be that these countries never experienced the collapse of civilization that happened in Europe with the fall of the Western Roman Empire. In addition, while intelligent peasant boys in China were entering the Scholar Gentry, intelligent peasant boys in Europe were entering the Roman Catholic priesthood, where they were forbidden to have any children at all. Of course, some did, but not as many as the large number fathered in China by the most intelligent men.

Because Professor Lynn demonstrated that average IQ differences between nations are significant, he was of course dismissed as a racist by those who would rather this issue simply go away.

Here are his estimates:

*not_secure_link*www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

There is a strong correlation between Professor Lynn's IQ estimates, and the results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

*not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment

This is an international study of student proficiency at the age of 15. Again, the Oriental countries score the best, followed by European countries and countries settled by Europeans. Countries settled by European whites are followed by Muslim and Latin American countries, which in turn are followed by countries with black majority populations.

Civilization began about five thousand years ago in Egypt and in what is now Iraq. In Egypt the average IQ is 83. In Iraq it is 87. This calls into question my earlier assertion that civilization breeds for higher intelligence. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that Arabs have some Negro ancestry. My explanation for their lower scores is that the African slave trade introduced Negro genes into the Arab genome. Arabs castrated male slaves, but they had sex with female slaves.

The racial group that has the highest IQ average is the Ashkenazi Jews. Their average is about 112, although some estimates place them at 115. Genetic research has demonstrated that the Ashkenazim are mainly descended from Old Testament Israelites, and first century Italians. There has also been some genetic input from the European nations the Ashkenazim have lived in since the first century.

Jews demonstrate their intelligence by winning one fifth of Nobel Prizes (although they are only one percent of the world's population.) They also dominate the best universities, the professions, and have higher average incomes than Gentiles of all races, even the Orientals.

The high averages of the Ashkenazim have been explained by the fact that for about a thousand years Jews in Christian Europe were not allowed to own land. They were excluded from most trades. They were allowed to enter a profession Christians were excluded from. This is the profession of money lending. Money lending involves complex calculations. These were much more difficult before the adoption of Roman numerals and the modern rules of arithmetic.

Jews who could not master the necessary skills for finance either did not have children, or they left the faith. Pogroms also bred Ashkenazi Jews for for higher intelligence. Those who survived tended to be those who were resourceful to move to safer countries, and learn new languages.

These factors are sufficient to explain the rise in the Ashkenazi intelligence. Currently computer technology is becoming increasingly important. If in the United States one needed to master C++, Java, and UNIX in order to have children, the average IQ of the American population would increase dramatically in a few generations.

 

Yet you STILL cannot answer Shootersa's question?

You vainly tried but your time-scale was wrong, now it is about time that you READ and fully understood the concept of what is meant by the words "since 1900" as this would include The Great War of 1914-1918 NOT just your small skirmish of 1939-1945.
In case you have forgotten Shootersa's question, including the EXACT wording, then it is pasted below for you.

Notice how I have LEFT your post complete, and I let the new software shorten the space your post takes up. IF an educated person like myself can do this WHY the fuck can't you.

====================================================

OOOHHH!
Dig into your large store of facts and tell us;
How many innocent people have been killed by Japanese since 1900?
How many innocent people have been killed by Germans since 1900?
How many innocent people have been killed by Blacks since 1900?
Shooter sits to wait and see if DL will answer............

 

the world has gone far too politically PC

 

The large number of "innocent people" killed by the Japanese and Germans during the world wars were killed in war time. Proficiency in war requires superior intelligence. A high rate of violent street crime does not.

I doubt you can respond intelligently to my essay, which immediately preceded your most recent repetition of a facile argument. Read it, and try.

Keep in mind that I did not copy and paste that essay from the internet. I composed it myself.

 

You can see that on this internet forum with the hysteria of the responses to my scientifically unremarkable assertions about racial differences in average intelligence.

I am flamed because I cannot be refuted.

Everybody knows that what I say is true. However, many wish I would not say it.

 

You never wear out, do you?

*not_secure_link*1.bp.blogspot.com/_Jt2fD4G_c2g/TTv-Wc2_woI/AAAAAAAAAV4/rNPy9v217Ac/s1600/Energizer+Bunny+Final.jpg

 

Not even remotely concerned with your essay because it has no bearing on the point I am raising.

You still haven't figured it out yet, have you?

Shootersa is NOT asking about deaths during JUST war time. They are asking for ALL innocent people killed by the Japanese, the Germans and the Blacks SINCE 1900.

==========================================================
OOOHHH!
Dig into your large store of facts and tell us;
How many innocent people have been killed by Japanese since 1900?
How many innocent people have been killed by Germans since 1900?
How many innocent people have been killed by Blacks since 1900?
Shooter sits to wait and see if DL will answer............

====================================================

This is at least a 114 year time-Frame, YOU are trying to bring everything down to just a small time-frame of a maximum of 10 years (1914-1918, 1939-1945)

Now go back and READ the question PROPERLY, DO NOT assume what is wanted, because all you are doing is taking the first 4 letters of the word ASSUME and using them to describe yourself, "ASS" and "U"

Now you have shown that you can leave posts complete, NOT edited and shortened, there is NO reason for you to edit and shorten any post again, if you do I hope someone complains and you get banned.

 

You are "flamed" as you call it, FOR NOT READING QUESTIONS THAT ARE PUT TO YOU, but ASSUMING WHAT IS BEING ASKED.

Get your facts right first before blowing your own trumpet

 

Shortened your post to respond only to the above -- editing a public forum post is not against the rules. If he wants to ignore 90% of what someone posts because he has no good response and to respond to only the 10% for which he can find links, that's fine. Shows his true skill in a debate.

 

I understand that, just a shame that he has to resort to those tactics, just to keep his self-imposed title. Unfortunately his lack of debating skills has already been proven, and every time he states that there is no-one on here worthy of debating with him it, just shows how mis-guided and delusional he is.

With the old Software I could just accept that it was being done to save space on his very old computer monitor, and also saving his very poor eyesight, but with this new software there is NO reason for ANYONE to edit or shorten a post when it is used as a quote.

 

Of course there is, if you want subsequent readers to focus more on the rebuttal than the quote, or if you want to try to hide the fact that you have no real rebuttal to the quote.

It's one of the first no-no's of Debating 101 -- failure to respond to an entire quote can be misleading and devious. Exactly his style.

 

Unfortunately, my enemies here never tire of flaming me because they cannot refute my arguments. This inability is not due so much to their intellectual limitations, but to the fact that what I say is true. Unfortunately, some posters prefer not to be told the truth.

Sometimes I feel like an honor student trying to read his term paper in front of the class as high school bullies throw paper wads at him.

 

I guess also by only showing the part of a post that you are responding to, can cause the context of the whole post to be changed, and this can have a detrimental effect on the debate

 

Do you hear yourself? Do you ever re-read what you post? Good grief, man!

Hate to break it to you, but some say the only perfect human ever born had nails driven through his hands when he was thirty-two. You're not infallible. You're not all-knowing. You're very good at research and quotes, but you don't demonstrate much original thinking. You can't explain your sources. You're like a computer. You can regurgitate data, but you show no soul.

High school honor student in front of class bullies? Please. Haven't you grown since then?

 

Unlike you, as because of your constant editing and shortening of posts means that YOU NEVER LEARN WHAT THE TRUTH IS.

 

I am confident that if we only consider innocent people killed by Germans and Japanese in peace time that the number will be small. This is because right now the murder rate in Germany and Japan is very small.

Right now the murder rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants in Japan is 0.3. In Germany it is 0.8. By contrast, in the United States it is 4.7.

*not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

I have. My detractors have not.

 

Where does it say in the Rules that posters cannot edit and shorten posts?

 

Although I shorten the posts to what is worth responding to I read the entire post. What have I never learned? What would change my opinions if I learned it?