Ethyrial

Well, let us just suppose, hypothetically, that it can be unequivocally proven that Bolivians are better at mathematical thinking. It would logically follow that one could expect a higher proportion of Bolivians to succeed in advanced mathematics programs, relative to their proportion in the general population. Then there would logically be no reason to tip admissions to these mathematics programs in favor of non-Bolivians, correct?

Not that there's any way to test certain facets of intelligence; there are definitely intellectual fields for which the above could never be done. But hey, in that scenario, suppressing the information only hurts the Bolivians.

All that aside: for whatever reason, it is not at all "un-PC" to claim that certain races are much physically weaker than others (I recall there was a recent thread in the College Life forum about this, in which this claim was made, numerous times, by certain posters. And other offended parties did not "demand an apology"). But when it comes to a comparison of intellect there's suddenly this huge stigma. Why the double standard? Would the former comment suddenly become unacceptable if success in our society were measured by physical strength?

Newjack88

let's not make this an AA thread.

i have to agree with Bay, there is a significant "so what" factor since this scenario isn't ever going to happen.

it's not ok to make generalizations like that either because they are unfair. even if there is some "truth" to those stereotypes they still hurt people just like the Asian-IQ thing does.

Bay

No it doesn't. Aside from the fact that the U.S. alone has 3000 colleges, in this country everyone (including convicted felons) is free to study anything they choose. A math whiz does not necessarily make a good citizen (see, e.g., Ted Kaczynski).

Canuckguy

To answer the "so what" factor, you are moving into the work of Richard Lynn and associates.

Many decades ago I was looking at international development and came to a slightly different conclusion. As a young and politically-incorrect undergrad at the time, I was wondering if any so-called "developing" countries in fact became developed. I reasoned that if non of them has developed, then the older but less politically correct term "underdeveloped" may be more apt.

At the time, I could find four that were qualified to be called "developing" countries-Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea. They all seemed to have certain characteristics in common. They were small, non democratic, capitalistic, and highly influenced by Confucianism. I was wondering if they were necessary but insufficient factors in development.

I remember looking at Singapore and Trinidad in particular. They both were ruled by Britain, became independent at around the same time and had the time to produce two generations of the administration class. Furthermore, Trinidad discovered oil on her territory. On the surface, Singapore should have been out-classed. All she has is a harbor. Reality as we all know is quite different.

The strangest case was Argentina. She managed to turn herself from one of the world's richest in the late 1800s to a basket case by the 1970s. Unbelievable.

With the recent advances in China and India, I can see that my hypothesis was too "narrow". What is happening in Kenya, on the other hand, makes me wonder.

Interesting diversion from the topic.

Newjack88

read the book The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad by Fareed Zakaria. it should answer your questions.

sockpuppet

@firebird

just because you find it unlikely that these smart people don't study 1-2 hours, it's very, very possible. i'm not saying these kids don't, but some of us actually can pull 4.0 uw without more than 2 hours of studying

i took 6 ap's, had varsity swimming (which was a class period as well) and club swimming, along with an internship with a cardiologist. i didn't study more than 2 hours a night because i didn't have time (get home around 8, have to wake up around 5:30 to make 6 am practices). i had a 4.0 uw gpa. i didn't get 99's and 98's, but I got all A's

if your efficient with your time, it's not as bad as it seems. if someone reads 100 pages of bio in an hour, and another person takes 2 hours because he was chatting with his friends and watching TV, "studying" for 2 hours means nothing.

swimmy

haha i think i might be narcissa's twin~
quote: "I hate it when I walk in bio class and these asian kids that get 47/50 on bio tests say they barely study, but get high test scores..."

i think it is totally possible to get 47/50 on a bio test without studying a significant amount, and i bet you that guy you give an example of is not lying about his life outside school. In my first semester of ap bio class taught by a former visiting prof. at princeton/ guy who used to work at cold spring harbor, (haha i'm not sure of the exact details, but the point is that he's really smart/ has high standards =P) I was able to get 78/75 on our unit test on photosynthesis while most people got 40 or below -__- our tests cover 5 chapters at a time out of our textbook, so 102 pages of material.

completely honestly, they all studied a LOT more than I did. Rather than studying and cramming outside of class, I just listened carefully when our teacher talked and made sure I understand where every number, scientific term, etc. was fitting in. I did study a bit, (looked at the diagrams in the book, looked at my notes), but I know it was not a long time because besides for one hour at home, I did it during the 30 minute break between classes. Not exaggerating and being cocky~ there are other kids in my school (curiously, all belonging to scioly) who are like this. I don't know if it's like this in other schools, but I don't see any of the super-studious/ take lots of sat prep asians doing stuff like scioly, i only see them in my AP classes freaking out about every test!

(btw I am half taiwanese, half euro female [junior year])
Curious sidenote, I also scored 235 on my PSAT, same subscores =)
I used to be pretty into swim team/ going to travel meets, but my parents made me quit cause they thought the cold water was bad for health -__-
And also I do math club, scioly, and GLL science prog. from northwestern.

kwyml

Hong Kong was/is not a country. It had been a part of China as early as the Sung Dynasty (960 A.D.-) until Britain won the 1st Opium War. Hong Kong was ceded to Britain in 1842 under the Treaty of Nanking. It remained a British colony until 7/1/1997 when it was returned to China. Hong Kong is now a special administrative zone of China...

Taiwan is not recognized as a country by many nations, although its current President, a native Taiwanese, believes it is. Chiang Kai Shek & his KMT that ruled Taiwan for a long time are not native Taiwanese.

aisgzdavinci

1. I don't know what people are fighting over. "Intellect" is influenced by the environment a child grows up in and genetics as well. So really, people only have a hand in changing the environment, not the genetics of a person (although we could do it in a few more decades).
2. Hong Kong is a city and Taiwan is a province. Both are not countries

Narcissa

nope, sorry.

kwyml

If Hong Kong is not a city, what is it then?

Canuckguy

Zakaria's concept of illiberal democracy is a good one. Even as a kiddo, I could see that democracy was unnecessary for economic development. In fact, I was wondering if it was a hindrance. As far as administrative structures go, a capitalistic system of goods distribution is essential, IMHO.

I just think that Zakaria has far too much respect for the "elite" and not giving culture and education proper due. Confucianism's deep respect for education and hard work helps to create a ruling class that makes progress possible. I suspect something similar is at play in India as well. It would be interesting to see if the same "successful" countries also produce "successful" immigrants for America as well.

I know Richard Lynn would probably argue that IQ has the greatest impact on the "wealth of nations". This may be able to explain away why Singapore is more successful than Trinidad, but try to explain why Germany is more successful than say Spain is problematic.

Interesting.

aisgzdavinci

I think Narcissa is thinking of Hong Kong along the lines of Singapore. Singapore ceded from Malaysia in 1965. Hong Kong was under the control of a country: it just switched in 1997.
If s/he is referring to Taiwan, then I dunno what to say.

Narcissa

lol old political arguments, *stays away* :P

even if we do accept that there is an IQ difference among races, i doubt that such a small difference would make any significant difference.

beefs

this thread is so ridiculously stupid.