为什么中国人的平均智商比印度人高？ [美国媒体]

Why China has a higher average iq than India?

为什么中国人的平均智商比印度人高？


Kannan Maravar, Here to make a difference
India falls at 25th place (82) where china at 7th place (100)for average IQ and Hong Kong at first place (108), Pakistan and Afghanistan at 23rd(84).
These numbers came from a work carried out from 2002 to 2006 by Richard Lynn, a British Professor of Psychology, and Tatu Vanhanen, a Finnish Professor of Political Science, who conducted IQ studies in more than 80 countries.
Richard and Tatu argues that differences in national income are correlated with differences in the average national intelligence quotient (IQ). They further argue that differences in average national IQs constitute one important factor, but not the only one, contributing to differences in national wealth and rates of economic growth.
These results are controversial and have caused much debate, they must be interpreted with extreme caution.
Sources: IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2006), IQ and Global Inequality(2002).
I believe these surveys are outdated, if  IQ survey would taken now then I bet India would fall in Top 10.
When comparing India's Avg IQ level with China, Education in China is a state-run system of public education run by the Ministry of Education. All citizens must attend school for at least nine years, known as the nine-year compulsory education, which the government funds. It includes six years of primary education, starting at age six or seven, and three years of junior secondary education (middle school) for ages 12 to 15. Where in India, Education have became a good profitable private business and less trust on government education system. Even maximum government employee's kids are in private academy.
Even Hong kong is among the top performers in the Programme for International Student Assessment.
Indian Education emphasis more on theory and written papers where china emphasis more on practicals and real world performance.
But the same Indian education system have given great scientist, developers, players, programmers, and many good heart.

回复1
Kannan Maravar,在这发光发热
就平均智商而言，印度落在第25名（82），中国则处于第7名（100）。香港最高（108），巴基斯坦和阿富汗排在23位（84）。
这些数据来自于一项工程，从2002年到2006年由英国心理学教授理查德·林恩和芬兰政治学教授塔图·温汉南开展完成，他们分析研究了超过80个国家民众的智力。
理查德和塔图认为国民收入的差异与国家平均智力水平（IQ）的差异有关。他们进一步认为在导致了国家财富和经济增长速度的差异方面，平均国民智商的差异是一个重要因素，但不是唯一的因素。
这些结果是有争议的，引起了很多争论，他们俩人必须极其谨慎地加以解释。
来源：智力和全球不平等（2002），智力和国家财富（2006）。


 
我相信这些调查已经过时了，如果现在进行IQ调查的话，我敢打赌印度将会进入前十。
拿中国人来比较印度人的平均智商，中国的教育是由教育部管理的公立教育系统。所有的公民都必须上学至少九年，也就是政府资助的九年义务教育。它包括6年的小学教育，从6岁或7岁开始，以及3年的初中教育（中学），年龄在12岁到15岁之间。在印度，教育已成为一项利润丰厚的私营产业，民众对政府教育体系的信任度也很低。甚至政府雇员的孩子都在私立学校上学。
就连香港也是国际学生评估项目中表现最好的学生之一。
印度的教育更侧重于理论和书面论文，而中国更注重实践和现实的成绩。
但是同样的，印度教育体系培育出了伟大的科学家、开发人员、运动员、程序员和许多优秀的人才。

Marvin Dookharan, studied Computer Science at University of Maryland, College Park (2012)
The short answer: Brain birth defects / poor nutrition at early ages as indicated by infant mortality rates.
The correlation between infant mortality and IQ is extremely strong r=-.84, nearly perfect among the very strongest correlations found with IQ.
Leading causes of infant mortality are brain birth defects (linked to low IQ) , low birth weight (linked to low IQ), and poor nutrition at early ages (linked to low IQ) so the infant mortality rate would give us a great idea about the likelihood of brain birth defects and poor nutrition at early ages which is probably why it correlates so strongly with IQ.
There are all types of birth defects, neural-tube defects, and nutritional deficiencies linked to impaired brain development and low IQ (and also directly connected to infant mortality).
China's infant mortality rate is like 4 times lower than India's infant mortality rate…this means China has far fewer people with birth defects and poor nutrition linked to low IQ than India does.
Let’s compare China’s infant mortality rate with India’s infant mortality rate:
This means the worst regions in China in terms of infant mortality rates are better than many of the best regions in India in terms of infant mortality rates!
The worst regions in China only have infant mortality rates like 16–22 per 1,000 which is lower than nearly every Indian state’s infant mortality rate.
China had a one-child policy since 1979…this may explain why China’s infant mortality rate is so low.
If India or any country wants to increase their average IQ they should focus on reducing birth defects and poor nutrition at early ages (nearly the same as reducing the infant mortality rate).
Maybe passing a one-child or two-child policy like China did would work effectively to reduce the infant mortality rate. Polls show that the majority of Chinese people support the one-child policy (76%) I’m sure many people in India would also support it or a similar policy. It would cause the population growth and infant mortality rate to go down, and also increase the average IQ of the next generation.
The idea that the Chinese would still have high average IQs with poor nutrition at early ages has been thoroughly debunked by many peer-reviewed studies like this study showing the Chinese having IQs less than 70:
"In Baihuyaon villagers who were aged 30-35 years (n = 50), who were born during the period of severe iodine deficiency, 72% of villagers had an intelligence-quotient score of less than 70" (Iodine deficiency impairs intellectual and neuromotor development in apparently-normal persons. A study of rural inhabitants of north-central China. )
The US in the 1900s had an average IQ of 67–70…the infant mortality rate was extremely high back then. The US introduced iodized salt in the mid-1920s which boosted the IQ and reduced the infant mortality rate dramatically. Right now India’s infant mortality rate is similar to the US’ from the 1940s.
World Map of Average IQ:
You can see how strong the correlation between infant mortality and IQ is by looking at those two maps..it’s as if average IQ and infant mortality rates are one in the same.
Groups genetically close but distant in terms of infant mortality rates have average IQs more distant than groups genetically distant but close together in terms of infant mortality rates.
Reducing the infant mortality rate of any group or country should increase the average IQ of the next generation dramatically.
Every country should have like an average IQ in the 100s-110s once you eliminate birth defects and poor nutrition at early ages which is like the same as having a low infant mortality rate.
We should be able to achieve global IQ equality just by achieving a low infant mortality/birth defect/poor nutrition at early ages rate worldwide.
I feel that if countries want to improve the brains of the next generation they should use the education funding towards reducing brain birth defects and poor nutrition at early ages (nearly the same as reducing the infant mortality rate) rather than like on improving the education system, new school supplies, or fancy infrastructure, higher pay for teachers, or other things unrelated to brain development. It’s not that complicated or expensive either.
Reducing birth defects, NTDs, low birth weight, and poor nutrition at early ages should be the most effective way of increasing the average IQ of any group. If the infant mortality rate is reduced dramatically the next generation would have average IQs like 1 or more SDs above the previous.
If India or any country really wants to dramatically increase the average IQ of the next generation they should concentrate their efforts primarily on improving prenatal care, maternal nutrition before and during pregnancy, reducing birth defects, underweight birth, and poor nutrition at early ages…which is nearly the same as reducing the infant mortality rate.
Nearly every study shows that nutrition at early ages has a big effect on brain development and IQ but after around age 5 or so it seems to not matter much…probably because by age 5 humans reach 90% of their adult brain size. Nutrition seems to matter a lot at earlier ages…by age 2 humans reach 80% of their adult brain size.
Malnutrition is linked to nearly half of infant deaths (45%) so simply having food and water would dramatically reduce the infant mortality rate. Then there are certain things like folic acid which seems to reduce the likelihood of birth defects significantly. Perhaps India should have the fortification of folic acid, iodine, iron, B12, and other things in commonly eaten foods like many other countries do to reduce the infant mortality rate.
I wonder if we could create a super-high IQ society where the average IQ is like 160 or so just by copying certain aspects of the diet that high IQ adults had at early ages (and aspects of their mother’s diet before and during pregnancy). I also noticed that Christopher Langan (one of the few people to have an adult IQ of 190 or higher on multiple tests) ate a lot during his growth spurts and started weightlifting at age 12…studies show that for adults weightlifting boosts brain power…but I wonder what effect it would have at earlier ages prior to the brain being fully developed.
But you don’t need a high average IQ for survival or everyone in a country to be a super-genius…I wonder why China still has nearly the same amount of Nobel prizes in science as India even with an infant mortality rate 4 times lower…
What if a high average IQ isn’t a good thing for society…what if it’s better to have an average IQ in between too high and too low with just some super-geniuses….or what if even a low average IQ is better overall in the long run…

回复2
Marvin Dookharan, 就读于美国马利兰大学帕克分校（2012），研究计算机科学
简而言之：婴儿死亡率证明了早龄期婴儿大脑的先天缺陷/营养不良
婴儿死亡率和智商之间的相关性非常强r=-.84，几乎是与IQ有联系的因素中最强烈的一个。
导致婴儿死亡的主要原因是大脑先天缺陷（可以联系为低IQ），低出生体重（可以联系为低IQ），以及早龄期的营养不良（可以联系为低IQ），所以婴儿死亡率会让我们更好的理解早龄期婴儿大脑先天缺陷和营养不良的可能性，这可能就是为什么婴儿死亡率与智商有如此强烈的关联的原因。
各种各样的先天缺陷，神经管畸形和营养不良，这些都与大脑发育不良和低智商有关联（这些直接和婴儿死亡率联系在一起）。
印度的婴儿死亡率是中国婴儿死亡率的4倍…这意味着中国因为出生缺陷和营养不良所导致的低智商婴儿的数量要比印度少得多。
让我们比较一下中国的婴儿死亡率和印度的婴儿死亡率：


 
这就意味着，在婴儿死亡率方面，中国最糟糕的地区比印度许多最好地区的表现都要好得多。
中国最糟糕地区的婴儿死亡率只有千分之16-22，比几乎所有印度邦的婴儿死亡率都要低。
自1979年以来，中国就有了独生子女政策，这也许可以解释为什么中国的婴儿死亡率如此之低。
如果印度或任何国家想要提高他们的平均智商，他们应该关注减少早龄期婴儿的出生缺陷和营养不良问题（这就相当于减少婴儿死亡率）
也许像中国一样实施一胎化或二胎政策可以有效地降低婴儿死亡率。民意调查显示，大多数中国人支持独生子女政策（76%），我相信很多印度人也会支持这项政策或类似的政策。这将导致人口增长和婴儿死亡率的下降，并增加下一代的平均智商。

中国的平均智商在早期就很高的观点已经被许多研究彻底证伪了，比如这项研究表明中国人的智商低于70：
“白湖村（音译）村民年龄在30—35之间（n等于50），他们出生在严重缺碘的年代，72%的村民智商评分低于70”（碘缺乏会损害正常人的智力和神经运动发育——一项关于华北地区农村居民的研究。）
上个世纪初美国人的平均智商是67—70…当时美国的婴儿死亡率非常高。美国在20世纪20年代中期引入了加碘盐，这提高了美国人的智商，并大大降低了婴儿死亡率。目前印度的婴儿死亡率与上世纪40年代的美国相似。
世界平均智商地图：

 
通过观察这两张地图，你可以看到婴儿死亡率和智商之间的相关性。这就好像平均智商和婴儿死亡率就是一回事那样。
在婴儿死亡率方面，基因相近但距离较远的群体的平均智商要远高于基因遥远的群体，但在婴儿死亡率方面却很接近。
降低任何一个群体或国家的婴儿死亡率应该会大大提高下一代的平均智商。
一旦你消除了婴幼儿的出生缺陷和早期营养不良的问题，把婴儿死亡率降低，那么每一个国家都应该有100-110左右的平均智商。
我们应该可以通过在全球范围内实现低婴儿死亡率/出生缺陷/营养不良来实现全球各国在智商上的平等。
我觉得如果国家想要改善下一代的智商的话，他们应该利用教育资金来减少早龄期婴幼儿的大脑先天缺陷和营养不良（几乎和降低婴儿死亡率一样）而不是做与婴幼儿大脑发展无关的事情，比如改善教育系统，建立新学校，或者昂贵的基础设施，给老师更高的薪水等等。这既不复杂，也不昂贵。
减少婴儿的出生缺陷、神经管畸形、低出生体重和营养不良，应该是提高任何群体的平均智商的最有效方法。如果婴儿死亡率显着降低，下一代的平均智商就会比上一代高上许多。

如果印度或任何国家真的想要大幅提高下一代的平均智商，他们应该将主要精力放在改善产前护理上，妊娠前和期间的孕产妇营养，减少出生缺陷，体重过轻，以及早期营养不良等等问题。这与降低婴儿死亡率几乎是一样的。
几乎每项研究都表明，早龄期的营养供给对大脑发育和智商有很大影响，但在大约5岁左右之后，这似乎并不重要了。大概是因为5岁时，人类的大脑体积达到了90%。这表明营养似乎在婴儿早期很重要…到2岁时，婴儿的大脑体积达到了成年大脑体积的80%。
营养不良与近一半的婴儿死亡（45%）有关，因此仅仅足够的食物和水的供给就可以显着降低婴儿的死亡率。还有一些东西，比如维生素B，似乎可以显着降低婴幼儿出生缺陷的可能性。也许印度应该加强维生素B、碘、铁、维生素B12以及吃其他国家普遍吃的食品，以降低婴儿的死亡率。
 
我想知道我们是否可以建立一个超高智商的社会，其平均智商能达到160左右，仅仅是通过模仿一些高智商成年人早龄期的饮食结构（怀孕前和怀孕期间母亲各个方面的饮食习惯）。我也注意到克里斯托弗·兰根（他是少数几个能在多重测试中，成年IQ成绩达到190甚至更高的人）在他成长的过程中吃很多东西，在12岁时开始举重…研究表明，成人举重可以提高大脑的活力…但是我想知道举重在大脑发育成熟之前会有什么影响。
但是你不需要高智商才能生存也不需要让每个国家的人都成为超级天才…我很疑问，为什么中国的诺贝尔科学奖和印度的诺贝尔奖一样多，即使中国的比印度低了4倍。
高平均智商对社会来说不一定就是好事…一个人的智商处于过高和过低之间才是最好的，或许才是真是的超级天才…可能从长期来看，低平均智商会更好…

Rohit Patnaik, lives in India
Tl;Dr:- It's called the Flynn effect. The rest of the answer is just sort of rambling blog. Skip it if you wish.
There are many factors that go into explaining IQ- and one of the most important among them is economic status. For example, there was a very widely reported & interesting paper a few years back by Dr Gregory Clark, an economist at the University of California. Britain, of course, is one of the few places where such a study can even be done these days- primarily because the Age of colonization pretty much evened out the edges where they were concerned. In places like the Balkans & Italy, you had nothing to soften the cultural memory. Good luck to anyone trying to do a comparative test for IQ between Po Valley & Sicily. Lolz...
Anyway...
'Moneyed' surnames, such as Darcy, Percy, Baskerville and Mandeville continue to have more cash than those with 'poor' names, such as Smith, Mason and Cooper.
So, it turns out that French-style Norman families are still significantly richer, longer-lived, and- considering the Flynn effect- arguably smarter than their Germanic cousins even in the heart of England- a clear sign that generations of economic deprivation- no matter how far in the past- do continue to afflict modern populations in this day & age.
And the deprivation differentials between India & China are far more recent. Here's the very first economic data graph I pulled from Google search.
As bad as this graph may seem, things get worse...
So, as it turns out- China not only has a lead in economic stats over the past 60 odd years, it has been leading us for most part of the part 5 centuries. Of course, one might argue that since the rise of the Middle Class didn't really being until the 1850s, such a scenario may not be bleak as it seems. In any case, it's clear that the economic policies stemming from London, and later, New Delhi have effectively devastated the average IQ of Indian kids- a clear sign who we must be voting for in all the elections henceforth. ;)
At this point of time, I wanted to talk about race and its effect on IQ- and here I must point out some very obnoxious- though interesting- articles. Please read this India's Average IQ in 2100?, this rec1man On Indian IQ & this Caste & IQ in India. They're nonsense. Complete nonsense. Of course- at the risk of being completely politically-incorrect, I'm not contesting their claims that Case（注：答主写错，应为种姓Caste） affects IQ but the reasons they've given for such a fact are completely & hilariously wrong.
Caste is a question of genetic lineage. Thus, castes with a history of good economic support as well as a history of educational achievement would have an advantage in both genetic IQ as well as have the propensity for genes responsible for high IQ passed down to their descendants. Karlin mentions this very surprising statistic:-
Orissa’s TIMSS 95% percentile compares favourably to Norway’s because Orissa’s is one of India’s higher scoring states and Norway is oddly enough Europe’s lowest by far. Norway’s 95% percentile was 573 (Orissa’s 577) but this is significantly lower than Bulgaria (611), Serbia (618), and Romania (619). To add some more perspective, neighboring Sweden is 614, Lithuania 628, Estonia 645, and Latvia 625.
So, at this point we can be sure that some one in this entire list has been shitting around- either it's us & Norway, or the Balkans, or the Baltic states. Anyway- a more significant point here is that Orissa's population is mostly tribal (40%) and there's a clear genetic split between Coastal Orissa & the Tribal belt (in contrast, there is NO genetic split between the North & the South of India. So much for the AIT). In essence, a mostly tribal state is reporting results at par with a Nordic state and also has better results compared to most of the rest of India. Hmm...
Anyway- once we do put in results from highly urbanized Indian populations, it turns out the IQ difference between Indians & the Rest of the World vanishes- even after taking Caste in consideration. Stats for Indian migrants to the US show them to be the best performing ethnicity- at par only with the Jews when it comes to IQ & higher than East Asians. Even selecting for the highly competitive American immigration scenario, we can take the stats for Indian schools in the Gulf. Results for Qatar School rankings- mostly divided by ethnicity & religion- are similar- even a mixed population representative of all Indian castes reports IQ levels at par with China & higher than Whites by nearly 1 SD.
Thus, it's quite clear that once you adjust for economic data, caste stops being a factor at all.
A key problem here is that China & India have taken two very different routes in terms of educational policies. China has concentrated on improving things from the ground level- by promoting primary education & technical centres. India, for some reason, has concentrated on promoting centres of excellence like the IITs & IIMs. Now in the interests of fending off anyone who wants to crib about these institutes here- I believe that such institutions are extremely important when it comes to developing our country & anyone not supportive of them is having a rather short-sighted view of India's future...        
The idea here seems to have been to create centres of excellence and ensure that growth percolates down to the many- and all of us know that Trickle-Down theories never work. This is also why the current caste-based reservation system is not going to work either; any 'intellectual' who says otherwise is a liar & a hypocrite. (Anyone interested in knowing more about this can read up on Thomas Sowell's Differential Policies).

回复3
Rohit Patnaik, 生活在印度
这就叫作弗林效应（注：指智商测试的结果逐年增加的现象。如果一个国家攻克某种疾病，它的居民的智力水平就会得到提升。）。剩下的答复就是杂乱无章的博客文。如果你不想看，就直接跳过吧。
在解释智商方面有很多因素，其中最重要的因素之一是经济地位。例如，加州大学的经济学家格雷戈里·克拉克博士在几年前发表了一篇非常广泛有趣的报告和论文。当然，英国是少数几个可以进行此类研究的地方之一，这主要是因为殖民时代使这些被他们所关注的边缘问题正常化了。在巴尔干半岛和意大利这样的地方，你无法软化其文化记忆。那些想要在波河平原和西西里岛之间进行智商比较测试的人来说，祝你好运吧。
有钱人的姓氏如达西、珀西、巴斯克维尔和曼德维尔的人比那些穷人姓氏，如史密斯、梅森、库珀的人更富有。

所以，根据弗林效应，事实证明，法兰西风格的诺曼家族仍然非常富有、寿命更长，可能也比他们德国堂兄弟更聪明，甚至在英格兰的核心地带也如此——一个明显的迹象表明经济贫困具有世代性。无论过去的程度如何，在当今时代，都要继续折磨现代人。
而印度和中国之间的贫困差异更多是近期形成的。这是我从谷歌上找到的最新经济数据表。
这个图表看起来很糟糕，实际情况更糟

所以，表格表明在过去的60多年里，中国不仅在经济统计方面处于优势地位，中国在近5个世纪的大部分时间里都一直领先我们印度。当然，有人可能会说，由于中产阶级的崛起直到十九世纪50年代才真正开始，这样的情况可能并不像看起来那么糟糕。但无论如何，很明显，来自伦敦和之后的印度的经济政策已经严重损害了印度孩子的平均智商——这是一个明确的信号，我们必须在今后的所有选举投票中都必须考虑印度孩子平均智商的问题。
在这个时候，我想谈谈种族及其对智商的影响——在这里我必须指出一些非常令人讨厌但有趣的文章。请看看《印度人在2100年的智力？》和《印度人的智力》以及《印度的种姓和智力》。这些文章毫无意义。就是彻底的胡言乱语。当然冒着政治不正确的风险，我并不是在质疑他们种姓会影响智商的说法，但他们给出的理由完全是错误的。

种姓是遗传宗谱的问题。因此。过去有着良好经济支持以及教育成就的种姓，会在智力上有优势，也会把有利于形成高智商的基因遗传给他们的后代。卡尔林提到了这一惊人的统计数据：
在第三次国际数理竞赛中，印度奥里萨邦的第95个百分点（注：统计学概念，具体自己找吧。）比挪威更优秀，奥里萨邦是印度得分较高的邦之一，而挪威则是欧洲得分最低的国家。挪威第95个百分点是573（奥里萨邦是577），但明显低于保加利亚（611）、塞尔维亚（618）和罗马尼亚（619）。还有，挪威的邻国瑞典是614、立陶宛是628、爱沙尼亚是645、拉脱维亚是625。
因此，在这一点上，我们可以确定，在这一名单中，有一些国家已经被忽略了——要么是我们印度和挪威，要么是巴尔干半岛，或者是波罗的海国家。总之，更重要的一点是奥里萨邦的人口主要是部落形态（达到40%），在沿海的奥里萨邦和部落地带之间有明显的基因分裂（相比之下，印度北部和南部没有基因分裂）。一个以部落形态为主的邦的报告结果与北欧国家持平，与印度其他地区相比也表现的更好。额…

总之，一旦我们从高度城市化的印度人口中来看，结果是印度人和世界其他地方的智商差距消失了——即使考虑到种姓制度。印度到美国的移民，根据统计显示他们是表现最好的民族——只有犹太人能与之相比，就智力而言，也高于东亚人。除了竞争激烈的美国移民这方面，我们可以选择波斯湾的印度学校作为数据参考。结果表明卡塔尔学校的排行——大多数由种族和宗教来区分学校，他们的智力表现都是类似的。即使是混合了各种种姓的印度代表，其智商水平也与中国不相上下，比白人高了近1个标准差。
因此，很明显，一旦你的经济发展了，种姓就不再是一个影响智力的因素了。

这里的一个关键问题是中国和印度在教育政策方面采取了两条截然不同的路线。中国已经把重点放在改善基础教育和发展技术中心之上。而印度，出于某种原因，一直致力于促进像印度理工学院和印度管理学院这些人才培养中心上。我认为这些机构在促进我们国家发展上面相当重要，我们要防止那些想要阻碍这些机构建立的人，那些持反对意见的人对于印度的未来十分短视缺乏远见。
印度的理念是想建立人才培养中心，确保人才培养能够普及许多人。我们都知道滴漏理论没有效果。这也是为什么当前基于种姓的预约系统无法生效的原因。那些对此进行否定的“知识分子”都是骗子、伪君子（任何想了解更多关于这一点的人都可以读托马斯·索厄尔的差异政策）。

（注：涓滴效应是指在经济发展过程中并不给与贫困阶层、弱势群体或贫困地区特别的优待，而是由优先发展起来的群体或地区通过消费、就业等方面惠及贫困阶层或地区，带动其发展和富裕，这被称作是“涓滴效应”。）

Ibteesam Reaz, Staff Physicist at Lockheed Martin
The answer is simple: the populous of China (as well as the Inuit) has favored mutations leading to larger and more efficient brains. This mutation is not present in any other populous. Mostly this relates to visuospatial ability rather than verbal ability. Also, there exists the fact that China was never “invaded” by the British, though they did experience a huge 100-year decline when imperialistic forces uprooted their society. This has led to favorable environmental and socioecomic conditions, whereas in India, a sizable portion of the population is vastly undernourished.

回复4
Ibteesam Reaz, 洛克希德马丁公司员工，物理学家
答案很简单：中国人口众多（因纽特人也一样）更易引发基因突变，从而形成更大、更高效的大脑。这种突变在其他人中并不存在。这种突变主要与视觉空间能力有关，而不是语言能力。此外，还有一个事实，即中国从未被英国“征服”过，尽管当帝国主义力量将他们的社会彻底破坏，他们经历了长达百年的衰落。这带来了有利的环境和社会经济条件，而在印度，相当一部分人口还处于营养不良状态。