Rating: 
Summary: Poor Science and Utter Rubbish
Review: This book is a pile of nonsense for these reasons:1) "IQ" is a controversial subject in psychology. Assigning a number such as 134 to measure a person's intelligence is a simplistic and out-moded concept. See Howard's theory of multiple types of intelligence. A person's measured IQ is likely to vary in a statistically significant way over time, both up and down and depending on a variety of factors e.g. Nobel prizewinner Richard Feynmann's IQ was measured at only 125, less than mine! 2) Even assuming IQ (whatever that is!) is measurable, the Flynn effect shows these increasing over a time ( a matter of a couple of generations). Does anyone really belive we have a "higher IQ" than our parents and grandparents? 3) For the sake of argument, let's suppose that one COULD assign a number as a measure of intelligence to an individual and that it WAS "accurate". Let us then say we wanted to compare the average IQ of the UK (pop: 56 million) with India (pop: 1 billion). We would have to: a) Take statistically valid and representative samples from the two populations
b) For each member of the sample, the IQ test assigned would have to be performed under the same conditions for each subject removing any variables such as level of hunger, say, any cultural and linguistiuc bias, level of education etc etc. - the list is endless. This is impossible to do. Assigning an IQ number to a population is such nonsense, I'm surprised that respected(?) academics can come up with such crap. While some may argue that the correlation between "IQ" and GDP is startling, we might just as well as found a correlation between nutrition levels and GDP, or education levels and GDP. The first thing that any statistician will tell you is that a good linear regression model does not imply causality. Finally tongue in cheek, I'd like to know why most people who believe in "IQ" obviously have such a low one.
Rating: 
Summary: World Average IQ Equals 90.
Review: This brilliantly conceived, superbly-written, path-breaking book, does for the global study of economic prosperity what Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) The Bell Curve did for the USA. IQ and the Wealth of Nations examines IQ scores and economic indicators in 185 nations. It shows that national differences in wealth are explained first, by the intelligence levels of the populations; second, by whether the countries have market or socialist economies; and finally, by unique circumstances such as, in the case of Qatar, by sitting atop a sea of oil. One striking fact is that the average national IQ of the world is 90. Few nations have IQs equal or near the British average of 100 (less than 20%). The highest average IQs are found among the Oriental nations of North East Asia (IQ = 104), followed by the European nations (IQ = 98), and the mainly White populations of North America and Australasia (IQ = 98), the nations of South and Southwest Asia from the Middle East through Turkey to India and Malaysia (IQ = 87), the nations of South East Asia and the Pacific Islands (IQ = 86), the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean (IQ = 85), and finally by the nations of Africa (IQ = 70). Because many nations have IQs of 90 or less (almost 50%), this poses a serious problem if the book's conclusion that IQ = 90 forms the threshold for a technological economy is correct. IQs can vary greatly within a geographic region. In Latin America and the Caribbean, IQs range from 72 in Jamaica to 96 in Argentina and Uruguay, and appear to be due to the racial and ethnic make-up of the populations. ... Mean national IQ correlates 0.71 with per capita Gross National Product (GNP) for 1998, and 0.76 with per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for 1998, and that national IQs predict both long term (1820-1922) and short term (1950-90; 1976-1998) economic growth rates measured variously by per capita GNP and GDP (mean rs ~ 0.60). Lynn and Vanhanen prove that the widespread though rarely stated assumption of economists and political scientists that all peoples and nations have the same average IQ is wildly wrong. They document that IQs predate earnings, are heritable, and are stable from age 5 onwards, and predict educational level and many other positive outcomes as evidence that IQ is the cause, not antecedent. The take home message of IQ and the Wealth of Nations is that national differences in IQ are here to stay and so is the gap between the rich and the poor nations.
Rating:
Summary: Incompetent work on an important subject
Review: This work contains some interesting facts about the correlation between GNP and average IQ of Nations. I have no doubt that the data is not totally bogus: a correlations exits, but since the proof is only statistical, the direction of the correlation is not obvious. Is low IQ caused by low GNP or the other way around? (I am assuming that the measurement of IQ is at least somehow meaningful, etc.) Also I have to note that the understanding of statistics by the authors is poor. It is incredibly ignorant to discuss the IQ of populations ONLY in term of averages. In statistics, the spread of distributions is also very important. Where are the standard deviations? This book leaves you ignorant about these important statistical measures. Also the authors give fits of the GNPs versus average IQs of countries, without giving estimates of the quality of the fits. (Chi square, anyone?) By looking at the figures, the fits are of very poor quality. Some scatter plots look like they would be better fitted by quadratic curves! If I were to referee this book as a scientific work, I would recommend its rejection: it was published only for ideological reasons. This is a pity, because a serious scientific work, done by somebody with knowledge of statistics, would be very important. It could even confirm the author's conclusions. As it stands, this book is useless.
Rating: 
Summary: The truth hurts...
Review: True, the numbers aren't perfect, but they should be adequate for anyone familiar with statistics and economic theory. Their numbers are certianly better than the "fuzzy math" passing as hard data in a lot of social science research these days.
Dr. Greg Rushing
Houston, TX
| 
