Why does China have so many people with high IQs?

[Mr Rayon]

Why do countries like China have so many people with high IQs relative to Western countries? I mean I know that China is the most populated country in the world but as a they also have a higher percentage of people with higher IQs. What are the psychological explanations for this? Is it because Chinese people are brought up in a more strict academic environment? Or has it got something to do with their genes?

[ajb]

Is there much real evidence for this? For sure a lot of the Chinese I have met are very intelligent, they are postgrad students in mathematics for example.

[swansont]

I'd also like evidence that the premise is actually true.

[CaptainPanic]

Do IQ tests exist that are completely unbiased towards language? And have they been used to generate enough data to make such a claim?

 

If someone just looked at a number of IQ tests from people in different countries, then who can guarantee that the baselines of value 100 are drawn at the same level?

[Marat]

If your brain develops through learning a Western language, your linguistic and mathematical skills are stored on opposite hemispheres of the brain, so you get the typical phenomenon of Western culture of a cultural divide between humanists and scientists since these skill sets are separate rather than integrated and mutually reinforcing. However, if your brain develops through learning an Asian language based on ideograms, your mathematical and linguistic skills are stored in the same hemisphere of the brain, where they mutually support each other. Ergo, you are smarter.

 

Cultural differences with respect to the importance of success, the work ethic, and respect for learning also make an important contribution.

[Mr Rayon]

I'd also like evidence that the premise is actually true.

 

This is pretty much general knowledge. But doing a quick google search, here are a few sites suggesting what I have said:

http://www.sabahan.com/2007/01/18/worlds-average-iq-distribution-map/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#National_IQ_estimates (check out the table rankings below)

[swansont]

This is pretty much general knowledge. But doing a quick google search, here are a few sites suggesting what I have said:

http://www.sabahan.com/2007/01/18/worlds-average-iq-distribution-map/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#National_IQ_estimates (check out the table rankings below)

 

When one sees large sections discussing the controversy of the data and methods, especially for a single source of information (not peer-reviewed, no corroboration), one might hesitate to claim that it is "general knowledge."

[mississippichem]

I have friend who studies abroad in China. He said Chinese parents push their children very hard in school because they all eventually have to take a standardized test that's name basically translates to the "tall test". The "tall test" determines if a child will be eligible for college, a trade program, or nothing at all. A child gets to take the test once and only once, so there is a lot of pressure. All this to say that Chinese culture is a culture of achievement and there is not much room for error or second chances. So Chinese children are highly motivated to be "smart". I don't know about that data though; seems a bit fishy to me.

[John Cuthber]

An answer to the question would be that, whatever it is that IQ tests measure, the Chinese have lots of it.

The more difficult question would be what does the IQ test actually measure?

[Marat]

A Canadian psychologist, Philip Rushton, published a study some years ago showing that Orientals have the most intelligent brains, Caucasions the second most intelligent, and Blacks the least intelligent. This of course created a national outrage, with the Premier of the Province saying he wished tenure regulations would permit him to fire the scientist from his post for publishing that data.

 

There is of course a fundamental mistake here, which is to think that we support the right of all people to be treated equally because they just contingently turn out all to be equal, rather than that we endorse universal human equality because it is a basic moral value.

[FutureDoc]

I once watched some random documentary of high school students enrolling in universities in China. It's crazy how disciplined and motivated they are. They go to school early in the morning and come back at night, then do lots of homework, late into the night, and repeat that process over and over again. Their dedication and discipline is amazing, well most of them. So I think that it has a lot to do with parents raising them up in a strict environment, in which a high education is most valued.

[ccdan]

because they're not fed too much irrational crap like religion as it happens in the western world, middle east, africa, etc... the same holds true for japan, south korea, ...

[zapatos]

because they're not fed too much irrational crap like religion as it happens in the western world, middle east, africa, etc... the same holds true for japan, south korea, ...

Do you have anything to back up this assertion? Or did you just find that this was a good opportunity to bash religion?

[John Cuthber]

because they're not fed too much irrational crap like religion as it happens in the western world, middle east, africa, etc... the same holds true for japan, south korea, ...

Personally, I'm reasonably happy with bashing religion, but you are wrong anyway.The particular irrational crap they are fed is what the Chinese call communism (which isn't the real thing, but that's beside the point).

[Marat]

Sir Isaac Newton not only grew up in a world filled with nonsensical ideology, but he even subscribed to it, devoting much of his life to kabbalistic interpretations of the hidden meaning of the Bible. His counter-example and that of many people like him indicate that the amount of nonsense you absorb doesn't act as a block to the development of the intellect.

[zapatos]

Being fed irrational crap might even help keep you mentally sharp as you try to reconcile the crap with reality.

[skyhook]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/12/06/GR2010120607984.html

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/12/shanghai-students-world-champs.html?ref=hp

 

This is in the news yesterday, Shanghai 15yrs old students highest score in tests. In my opinion, this is not an indication of the general population, but just a handful of bright students.

[timo]

[link to PISA results]

Shanghai 15yrs old students highest score in tests. In my opinion, this is not an indication of the general population, but just a handful of bright students.

Why would a test designed to test the average student not be an indication of the general population, but only of the top students? One possibility would be that a larger part of the general population already dropped out of school at the age of 15, but that's purely speculative. I think you should bother to add why you think so.

[skyhook]

Why would a test designed to test the average student not be an indication of the general population, but only of the top students? One possibility would be that a larger part of the general population already dropped out of school at the age of 15, but that's purely speculative. I think you should bother to add why you think so.

 

I think I should take back what I said about "Just a handful of bright students" . I mean to say that that is a small sample size, and I have a distrust of statistics. Have you ever speed through some surveyors' questions ?

[Ringer]

You also have to take into consideration the fact that, at least as far as I'm aware, they only allow most of the highest scores continue on. I'm not sure how whatever studies were done saying orientals were the smartest, but for the most part western societies allow anyone to attend school eastern societies have to take standardized tests to proceed further into the educational process. This could account for eastern societies testing higher on standardized tests. Also, there are different types of IQ tests, any ideas on what ones they were taking?

[timo]

I think I should take back what I said about "Just a handful of bright students" . I mean to say that that is a small sample size, and I have a distrust of statistics. Have you ever speed through some surveyors' questions ?

I have not looked at the questions. Neither do I know the sample size, nor the sample size that would be required to make accurate statements. The problem with distrusting statistics to deal with properties of large quantities of people is that there's no real other option to trust instead. Perhaps prejudice, since that's a fast and easy method. But prejudice is not very scientific. So in a scientific sense you've got to chose between statements you do not trust for whatever reason, or no statements at all.

For the validity of these data: the results are pretty much stable over the years, so I believe the sample size is large enough for differences not being completely due to random fluctuations. Since even I can think of this possible problem, it's not too surprising that the experts seem to have done that correctly.

 

You also have to take into consideration the fact that, at least as far as I'm aware, they only allow most of the highest scores continue on. [...] Also, there are different types of IQ tests, any ideas on what ones they were taking?

If you are talking about the PISA test that the articles skyhook linked to talk about: it's not an IQ test at all. It's a test that evaluates the skills of 15 year-old pupils in the fields of reading comprehension, math, and natural sciences (and possibly others that I am not aware of).

[Genecks]

A Canadian psychologist, Philip Rushton, published a study some years ago showing that Orientals have the most intelligent brains, Caucasions the second most intelligent, and Blacks the least intelligent. This of course created a national outrage, with the Premier of the Province saying he wished tenure regulations would permit him to fire the scientist from his post for publishing that data.

 

There is of course a fundamental mistake here, which is to think that we support the right of all people to be treated equally because they just contingently turn out all to be equal, rather than that we endorse universal human equality because it is a basic moral value.

 

Eh, I'd definitely need some really good genetic, developmental, and biochemical explanation as to why people would really be that different. We haven't really unlocked the mysteries of the biology of cognition, and we're still working on it. For what we have, though, a person could make some strong arguments, but I doubt a psychologist is going to be able to pull that off. I'd have to see it.

 

You'd really have to start opening a lot of people's brains, running genotype analyses, culturing tissue and doing cognitive experiments, and more. The ethics of it all would surely prevent people from firmly establishing the facts of the matter.

 

James D. Watson was pushing some views a few years ago about race and intelligence. But not enough of it was substantial enough.

 

 

If I had to throw out (and I've yet to have decent evidence to think Chinese have the highest IQs) and idea as to why China has people with higher IQs, I would have to say that it is due to the social nature of the Chinese. The intricate community-mentality that is provided in Chinese culture provides people with a way of sharing knowledge and achieving new heights rather than the competitive and individualistic model that is followed in America.

 

 

I'm reading about the psychologist and the work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior

 

Scientists are still researching more about social behavior and genetics, so something might pan out in the future. Then again, given enough time, maybe a few generations, eh, this social genetics stuff might be over-ridden as more races attempt to mingle.

 

We've only started to see how aggressiveness works in social creatures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

Edited December 10, 2010 by Genecks

[Ringer]

Meh according to the Pisa website (http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf) They have different areas of China listed, i.e. Shanghai, Hong Kong, etc. Some of those areas are average or even below the average scores. If you averaged all of the Chinese scores I don't think that the difference would be statistically significant compared to the other top countries, although I'm a bit to lazy to do it.

[CharonY]

Actually all regions of China (as far as I can see) are above average in science and mathematics and only Macao scored worse in the reading scale. However, if all schools, even those in the poor low-industrialized areas are taking into account, the overall score for China would be arguably low. Individual accounts still indicate that at least in mathematics they may be above average US public schools, though (which I find quite astonishing, if true).

[Marat]

One theory advanced to explain the higher than average intelligence of Jews was that throughout Jewish history, it was considered one of the social prerogatives of successful men that they could and should have large families, while it was the cultural norm that unsuccessful males should have small families. This acted as a selection pressure favoring the increase in genes associated with social success, which are pretty much the same genes that promote intellectual development.

 

A problem now in the United States is that with the increasing stagnation of incomes among the poor and the middle class, intelligent, educated, and culturally sophisticated people have realized that the only way to improve their familial wealth is by having fewer and fewer children with each generation. But uneducated, unintelligent, and culturally underdeveloped people, who are minimally conscious of their social situation and unable to conceive of their lives as a planned project, are still thoughtlessly having huge families. The result will inevitably be a decline in the average IQ.