什么造就了中国的成功？智商！ [美国媒体]

原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：chuhao123 转载请注明出处
论坛地址：

What makes China successful?

什么造就了中国的成功？智商！

原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：chuhao123 转载请注明出处
论坛地址：

Ken Man
I’ve never said this before, but I humbly ask you to read this answer in full before commenting or hitting the Downvote.

我以前从来没有这么说过，但我恳请你在评论或者点踩之前先读完这个回答。

China is successful because Chinese are intelligent, as in we’re one of the highest IQ nations in the world.

中国的成功是因为中国人聪明，因为我们是全世界智商最高的人种之一。

​

HOLD IT! I know what you’re about to do:

打住！我知道你想干什么：

Comment: “But IQ is a flawed concept, it means nothing!”
Comment: “IQ is a cultural construct that disproportionately favors areas of high development!”
Comment: “You’re a racist!”
Before you do that, please hear me out. First, let’s mythbust IQ tests by actually explaining what a modern IQ test is. I emphasize “modern” because the myths surrounding IQ tests all stem from old test formats.

评论：“但IQ是的概念有缺陷，毫无意义！”
评论：“IQ是一种文化产物，很大程度上偏爱于高度的发展！”
评论：“你是个种族主义者！”
在你动手之前，请听我说完。首先，让我们通过解释现代的IQ测试的本来面目来打破IQ测试的神话吧！我强调“现代”这个词是因为IQ测试的神秘光环全部来源于旧的测试格式。

The modern SAT is the closest approximation of what the early IQ tests were like. It helps to be smart, but it’s more important to be educated if you want to do well on the SAT. Practice also improves performance.

现代的SAT最接近早期IQ测试的形态。它有助于发展智力，但如果你想在SAT拿高分的话，受到教育更重要。练习也有助于提高表现。

A modern IQ test is nothing like the SAT. Modern IQ test differ in that:

现代IQ测试丝毫不像SAT，它的不同之处在于：

There are no words
There are no numbers
The test is not time limited
Practice leads to no significant change in performance

没有字，
没有数字，
测试没有时间限制，
练习对表现不会产生明显的改变。



A typical question from a modern IQ test. Literacy and math skills optional. Even literal aliens could do it.

这是现代IQ测试里的一个典型的问题，有读写能力和数学技能的选项，甚至不识字的人也能做。

To distill this down, let’s pretend you have an identical twin brother/sister. You two were separated at birth. You were the lucky one and grew up in an upper class neighborhood in London with access to the best education the world has to offer. Your twin drew the short straw and was raised in the Congo where he/she received no education whatsoever.

为了讲的更明白，我们假设你有个同卵双生的兄弟/姐妹。你们两个一出生就被分看。你是幸运的一个，在一个在伦敦的一个上层阶级社区长大，受到世界所能提供的最好的教育。而你的同胞兄弟很倒霉，在刚果长大，根本没有读过书。

The two of you, taking the same IQ test, would score very close, roughly around .76 which is only marginally lower than the .86 of twins raised together. The same person taking the test on different occasions has only a .95 correlation, so .76 is pretty damn close.

你们两个都接受这个IQ测试，分数会相当接近，相关性差不多在0.76左右，比一起长大的双胞胎的0.86略低。而同一个人在不同场合下接受测试只有0.95的相关性，所以0.76相当接近了。

Now, let’s talk about the “IQ test means nothing” meme. It’s true that a high IQ score at the individual level is no guarantee of success. There are plenty of people out there with high IQs who have achieved little in life. But there’s no denying the correlation between level of development and IQ at the national level. True, it’s not a perfect correlation by any means, but that doesn’t mean there’s no correlation.

现在，我们来说说“IQ测试毫无意义”的问题。在个人层面，高IQ得分并不能保证成功，事实确实如此。有大把的拥有高IQ的人却一辈子没什么成就。但发展水平和国家的IQ水平的相关性是不可否认的。事实上相关性无论如何都不完美，但并不是毫无相关性。

I know what you’re going to say: “but muh post-colonial struggles!!!” Yes, post-colonialism indeed. Tell that to Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia. If you’ll notice, every single former European colony with a high IQ is doing just fine. In fact, among the high IQ countries, those who were former British colonies are the ones doing the best. So if anything, post-colonialism should be a boon, not a burden. One only needs to look at the legacy of rule of law and British bureaucracy in Hong Kong and Singapore to see why.

我知道你要说：“但应该归咎于后殖民主义时代的斗争！”是的，正是后殖民主义。你跟香港、新加坡和马来西亚说去。如果你注意到，前欧洲殖民地的人在高IQ方面都还不错。实际上，在高IQ国家中，那些曾经是英国殖民地的国家得分最高。所以更可能的是，后殖民主义应该被视为福利而不是负担。人们只需要看看英国留给香港和新加坡的法治和官僚遗产就知道为什么。

Again, I know what you’re going to say: “but muh reverse causation! High IQ is because they’re developed in the first place!!!” OK, name me a single study anywhere that shows IQs in a given area/country improving as the level of development increases. I’m waiting…

我知道你又要说了：“但你把因果关系搞反了！高IQ是因为他们首先是发达国家！”好吧，那就给我找个特定地区的发展水平上升导致IQ改善的研究成果，哪里的都行，我等着呢……

Even if we ignore the utter lack of evidence to support your point, look at countries like Hong Kong, Singapore and China. While top tier Chinese cities boast levels of development on par with Singapore and HK, the vast majority of Chinese do not live in those cities. Yet the IQ scores across these 3 regions is quite similar. If more development really did have a significant impact on IQ scores, then Singapore and HK would leave China in the dust.

即使我们无视上面你那个缺乏证据支持的观点，看看香港、新加坡和中国这样的国家。虽然中国顶级城市号称发展水平能与新加坡和香港比肩，但大部分中国人并没有住在那些城市。然而以上三个地方的IQ分数相当类似。如果更高的发展水平真的会显着影响IQ分数，那新加坡和HK的分数会让中国望尘莫及。
（译注：香港不是个国家！）

Addendum on IQ variance:

智商方差补遗：

As Lucas Karl Hahn has brought up, mean IQs is not the only IQ metric at play when determining the relative success or failure of a country. There’s also the IQ variance within the population. In other words, it’s not just about how far to the left or right the bell curve rests but how tall or flat it is. A flat IQ bell curve means more Einsteins per capita (but also more Alex Jones listeners per capita).

Lucas Karl Hahn提出，在决定一个国家相对的成功或失败时，平均智商并不是唯一的智商衡量标准。在人口内部也存在智商差异。也就是说，重点不仅是钟形曲线的左右有多宽，也包括曲线的高度和平缓。平滑的IQ钟形曲线意味着更高的人均天才数量（也是更高的人均Alex Jones听众的数量）

While East Asian countries do have some of highest mean IQs, their variance is lower than those of Western Europe. Meaning that even if the average East Asian is smarter, there are more Einsteins per capita in the West.

虽然东亚国家并没有最高的平均智商，但他们的差异性比西欧国家要低。这意味着即使普通的东亚人更聪明，但西方人均的天才数量更高。

While a higher variance is beneficial, I don’t think its impact is substantial in the long run, and here’s why:

虽然更高的差异性有益，但我认为它并不能产生重大的长期影响，原因见下：

First, the impact of geniuses is more dependent on absolute number than per capita. In today’s world, the impact of one Einstein is not limited to a certain number of people, you don’t need multiple Einsteins to cover a population.

首先，基因的影响更依赖于绝对数量而不是平均值。在今日的世界，一个天才的影响不会受到人群数量的限制，不需要多个天才就能覆盖所有的人群。

A billion people country with 100 Einsteins is still in a better position than a 100 million people country with 30 Einsteins. So while a huge country like China has fewer Einsteins than the US in per capita terms, the absolute number of Einsteins will prove more decisive in the long run.

一个十亿人口拥有100个天才的国家，要比一个一百万人口拥有30个天才的国家占据优势。所以虽然像中国这样巨大的国家，虽然在人均天才数量方面比美国要少，但绝对的天才数量会在远期产生更大的决定性作用。

Second, a lower average IQ population is a dampener on the development of a country even if there are plenty of Einsteins running around. This problem is further exacerbated if the masses live under a democratic system with universal suffrage. This system leads to public policies that cater to the lowest denominator, i.e. the needs of the those at the mean IQ, or perhaps a bit lower as that segment of the population tends to be more dependent on government policy.

第二，较低的平均智商人群会削弱一个国家的发展，即使这个国家有足够的天才。如果在一个大众拥有普选权的民主系统中，这个问题会更加严重。这个系统导致国家政策迎合更低的分母，例如那些智商处于平均水平的人的需求，或者可能还要更低一点，因为那部分人口往往更依赖于政府的政策。

For example, Chinese policy makers don’t need to worry about pro-lifers, anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, flat earthers or people who still support Trump. These people are exceedingly rare in China and even were they more common, their impact on public policy would be limited by the fact that they have no vote.

例如，中国的政策制定者不需要担心堕胎者、反疫苗者、气候变化否认者、地球扁平论者或者依然支持特朗普的人。那些人在中国极为罕见，即使他们更加普遍，他们对国家政策的影响力也很有限，因为事实上他们没有投票权。



Lucas Karl Hahn
But does a nation’s success depend more on the average IQ, or the variance?

但一个国家的成功更加取决于平均智商，还是智商的差异性？

2) This in short explains why linking IQ to success for populations is total nonsense in the presence of nonlinearity. pic.twitter.com/sMeLFdWWlx
— NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) March 11, 2017
Average IQ is higher in China, but variance between lowest and highest-IQ provinces is greater in the US.

2)因为二者之间并非线性相关，说明把智商与人群的成功联系起来是完全没有意义的。
— NassimNicholasTaleb 2017-3-11
中国的平均智商更高，但美国的最高智商和最低智商的差异性更大

“The range of the regional IQs in the present study is from 101 (Qinghai) to 108 (Jiangsu and Shanghai), a 7 point difference. This is slightly greater than the 6.1 IQ points range between the 13 regions of the British Isles reported by Lynn (1979) for a more ethnically homogeneous population, but is less than the 10.1 IQ point range between the states in the United States from 94.2 (Mississippi) to 104.3 (Massachusetts) calculated by McDaniel (2006) for a more ethnically heterogeneous population.”

“现有研究显示，地区平均智商范围从101（青海）到108（江苏和上海），相差7点。这个数字比不列颠群岛13个地区之间6.1的点数稍大，数据来源Lynn (1979)关于更同质化人种的人口报告，但比美国的点数10.1要小，美国各州的IQ指标从94.2（密西西比）到104.3（马萨诸塞州），数据来源McDaniel (2006)对异质化人种的人口计算结果。”

Differences in intelligence across thirty-one regions of China and their economic and demographic correlates

在中国31个地区存在智力差异，以及地区经济和人口的相关性。

Zhikuo Tang
that is how western people’s brain work.when u debunk the cover,they will deny it.
这就是西方人大脑的运行方式，当你揭露了伪装，他们就会矢口否认。

原本是翻译平台上的部分内容，但鉴于篇幅就弄过来了。