Bolivia

[GePap]

Originally posted by VetLegion
LordShiva, GePap,

This is not a thread to discuss this, but what we've all been trained to believe, that we are all born the same and formed by the enviroment, is not standing up to scrutiny. To those interested in the topic, I recommend this blog: http://www.gnxp.com. They write about nature/nurture issues all the time.

Sorry, but I don;t know what "training" you speak of. Of course we are not all born the same, no one is ever "the same", even twins. What I dispute is that something as complex as the economic development of a state can be in any sensible or even remotely intelliegent way explained with something so questionable to begin with as "IQ", an item that at the end probably has NOTHING to do really with economic development anywhere, even at the smallest possible microeconomic level, single households.

[VetLegion]

Brachy-Pride, do I detect a change in your rhetoric? You aren't blaming evil West for Argentina?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by VetLegion
This is not a thread to discuss this, but what we've all been trained to believe, that we are all born the same and formed by the enviroment, is not standing up to scrutiny.

This I agree with. But, as shown, the methodology behind the work you linked is not sound.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by GePap What I dispute is that something as complex as the economic development of a state can be in any sensible or even remotely intelliegent way explained with something so questionable to begin with as "IQ", an item that at the end probably has NOTHING to do really with economic development anywhere, even at the smallest possible microeconomic level, single households.

IQ has a lot to do with everything. For example, research among twins raised in same households showed that the twin with higher IQ tended to move up on socio-economic ladder. Another example: IQ is highly correlated with income and academic achievement of individuals. Why is it so hard to understand the same could be at least a part of explanation of performance of countries?

[Barnabas]

I am not argentine so I can be objective when talking about them!

I do blame evil chile for bolivia´s problems!


Anyway, I dont like morales, I find some of his indigenist stuff very nutty, I am a catholic like msot bolivians, so when he dresses like an amerindian and goes to tiwanaku and worships pre columbian gods, I find that wacky, when deputies swear in the congress, not to god but to inti I find that wacky, when a minister says that before the spaniards amerindians lived 200 years, and that his grandmother lived 200 years! I find that wacky or that every amerindian should have 7, 8 children because population control is a white conspiracy to keep the number of amerindians low, I find that wacky too

[VetLegion]

Rapid population growth is not good. It can eat away the benefits of economic growth and GDP/capita could decrease even as GDP increases steadily. Swearing oaths to Indian deities is kind of cool though

[GePap]

Originally posted by VetLegion


IQ has a lot to do with everything. For example, research among twins raised in same households showed that the twin with higher IQ tended to move up on socio-economic ladder. Another example: IQ is highly correlated with income and academic achievement of individuals. Why is it so hard to understand the same could be at least a part of explanation of performance of countries?

Because countries are legal fictions on maps, and human populations mix regularly over time, and have for millenia.

Simple example, Costa Rica and NIcaragua are neighbors. Costa Rica is about 4 times richer per capita than nicaragua, but the genetic stock from which these countries come from is basically the same. So what plausible explanation would there be for a significant difference in IQ (as there sould be no, given the different levels of development?) having developed? Some Tico mutation that has stayed locally? Bull.

The simplest answer to you is thus: a state is a complex web of forces. An individual is NOT. What might be true for a single unit does not in any way have to mean that it is true for a huge set of said units interacting in a dynamic way.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by LordShiva


This I agree with. But, as shown, the methodology behind the work you linked is not sound.

My sources (again, I haven't read the book) say otherwise:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002608.html

[GePap]

Originally posted by VetLegion


My sources (again, I haven't read the book) say otherwise:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002608.html

Here is a though, look at more varied, and more reputable source.

[Barnabas]

On the issue of populations and iq

What about countries that are now poor but where rich before? did they get dumber? how?

for example all the places were civilization was born, egypt, iraq, pakistan/india, china, mexico and peru, none are first world countries, only china is a world power that is improving quickly

What about countries that were once poor and a now wealthy? like scandinavian countries or like ge pap mentioned switzerland

did they get smarter? how?

What do you think the iq of a germanic barbarian or a viking was?
did the germanic barbarians have higher iqs than north africans, say from carthague or cyrenaica?

edit: india is also kind of a world power I guess

what about cultural golden ages, like the one greece had, or spain in the XVII century, ?

can a country get very smart for a century and then lose it?

that is why it doesnt make a lot of sense, maybe intelligence is a variable but not the only one or even the msot important one

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by VetLegion
My sources (again, I haven't read the book) say otherwise:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002608.html

This link doesn't say that the methodology wasn't unsound, it shows that the data weren't fabricated.

If these guys had published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, and attempted to demonstrate a relationship based on their miniscule sample size, they'd be laughed out of tenure.

[VetLegion]

Brachy,

IQ is genetic for the most part (see blog I linked to for references). That means that historical populations should have the same IQ now as then if they remained compact to a reasonable degree.

What about countries that are now poor but where rich before? did they get dumber? how?

Today's poor is utopian rich for the past. Countries have only gotten relatively poorer, not absolutely. Egypt today is tremendously better off in comparison to ancient Egypt and so on.

So your examples don't invalidate the theory that IQ and the wealth of nations are linked.

[GePap]

Originally posted by VetLegion

Today's poor is utopian rich for the past. Countries have only gotten relatively poorer, not absolutely. Egypt today is tremendously better off in comparison to ancient Egypt and so on.

So your examples don't invalidate the theory that IQ and the wealth of nations are linked.

IQ itself a relative measure, not an absolute one. And Brachy does make an excellent point, since when we measure development, we do not measure simply the absolute greater wealth, but relative growth as well. In fact, that is what you claim IQ might examplain, relative growth.

That everyone is in an absolute sense richer is irrelevant to your own point, and certainly not a valid arguement against Brachy's.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
I am not argentine so I can be objective when talking about them!

I do blame evil chile for bolivia´s problems!


Anyway, I dont like morales, I find some of his indigenist stuff very nutty, I am a catholic like msot bolivians, so when he dresses like an amerindian and goes to tiwanaku and worships pre columbian gods, I find that wacky, when deputies swear in the congress, not to god but to inti I find that wacky, when a minister says that before the spaniards amerindians lived 200 years, and that his grandmother lived 200 years! I find that wacky or that every amerindian should have 7, 8 children because population control is a white conspiracy to keep the number of amerindians low, I find that wacky too

Yeah, they're wacky alright. I love that the fundimentalists, be it religious or of some stupid belief in ethnic pride, always want people to breed more and blame foreigners for all the poverty. Those people are just horrible at math. If a worker makes $1000 per year and has 8 kids then there is only $100 per person per year (2 parents and 8 kids), but if there are only two kids then there is $250 per person per year. That means the purchasing power per person has increased 250% due to population control measures. That's real money in real people's pockets which will effect their quality of life.

It is almost impossible to get economic growth fast enough to raise living standards unless you control population growth. If the economy grows at 3% and the population grows at 4% then on average people are getting poorer. but in the same situation if the population is only growing at 2% then the average person is getting richer. It's simple math.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by GePap
IQ itself a relative measure, not an absolute one. And Brachy does make an excellent point, since when we measure development, we do not measure simply the absolute greater wealth, but relative growth as well.

There has been no such thing as economic growth before the industrial revolution. Golden ages have happened in enviroments with annual GDP/capita growth of about zero. They weren't economic progress in today's sense. Greek Golden Age wasn't an increase in population's living standard. Egyptian Golden Ages were what, building pyramids? A nation with low average IQ can do that if it has a few architects and organizers, and obedient workers.

In today's complex society, where machinery has to be operated, built and fixed, where economic progress requires that great many people have very sophisticated skills (the average education period today is getting close to average lifespan in Roman ages), it is hardly possible to have low average IQ and good economic performance. I challenge you to find one example to the contrary.