Why does China have so many people with high IQs?

[Ringer]

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.

 

Personally I wouldn't take that theory seriously until:

A.) It was shown lower class people are having more children now than in times before (I would assume this is false since working class families have tended to have more children to work).

 

B.) You can prove that because these people with lower socioeconomic status are inherently less likely to be able to learn.

 

C.) What culturally underdeveloped means

 

D.) Why they are unable to conceive their lives as a planned project.

 

In every study I've read the average IQ has increased over time, see the Flynn Effect, so where are you getting the idea that the average IQ will inevitable decline.

[John Cuthber]

You can see exactly where he gets the idea that average IQ will decline.

In fact, it rises.

He is, therefore, wrong.

 

This statement "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. "

is, at best, false.

 

The idea about "thoughtless poor people" is deeply offensive.

It's also rather silly.

Most "civilised" countries, rightly or wrongly, provide welfare assistance to children.

However, as the children are not able to make use of this money, it is given to the parent(s) to use on the children's behalf.

The more children they have, the more money the family receives.

In many cases, this is a significant part of the family's income.

Why would they want to reduce it by having fewer children?

 

These families are not in a position to decide on the merit of the provision of a welfare state (at least not without the cooperation of others) and it would not be in their interests to do so.

Many rich people will not vote for the reduction of child support payments because it is seen as punishing the children who are the one group whoo can not be responsible for the system.

 

Of course, most people, of whatever income and background, have children as a result of a biologically produced desire to do so. The economics of the issue don't enter into it.

 

Also, in the UK (I don'rt know about the US but I suspect things are similar), the current birth rate is not high enough to maintain the population.

If it were not for immigration we would have a falling population.

If you ask an economist about what generates wealth he will probably say that, in the end, it is people.

Fewer people is not a good thing; who pays the pensions?