You're right: it's a bit racist. It's also faulty reasoning: you went to a high school in Cupertino with a markedly higher population of second-generation Asian-Americans, and went to a high school in an extraordinarily wealthy area; in fact, I think you might be attempting to generalize from the zip code with the highest density of immigrant professionals in the United States. If you want to generalize from China, that by itself is 1.4 billion people; they're as varied as any large population.
But I’m also Asian myself and all my relatives and everyone I know from China is the is way.
It’s a stereotype. Asian tiger moms. Asians are good at math. Math competitions, test scores. Quantitative metrics everywhere point to a worth ethic that is viciously high.
My conclusion of course is derived from quantitative evidence from general populations and iq scores by country. When I mentioned Cupertino I did it only to say that all the quantitative evidence happens to align with my anecdotal experience.
There are no such things as "IQ scores by country". If you're thinking about the data behind "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", the Richard Lynn stuff, it's basically fraudulent.
I didn't say anything about the validity of IQ. I said that Richard Lynn's numbers, which this site cites, are fraudulent. "IIT 2024" appears to be results from a website survey.
Respectfully, I think it's you that needs to do a bit more reading. I might be wrong about any of this stuff; I'm not an expert. But I'm pretty sure the first Google search result you find for "IQ by country" isn't going to rebut me effectively.
>I didn't say anything about the validity of IQ. I said that Richard Lynn's numbers, which this site cites, are fraudulent. "IIT 2024" appears to be results from a website survey.
You said IQ by country doesn't exist. And i said, IQ is so pervasive it fucking does. You also referenced something completely off topic. Some random book claiming that because that random book is invalid the whole concept of IQ by country doesn't exist which is absolutely wrong.
>Respectfully, I think it's you that needs to do a bit more reading. I might be wrong about any of this stuff; I'm not an expert. But I'm pretty sure the first Google search result you find for "IQ by country" isn't going to rebut me effectively.
I'm well versed enough in IQ to know that even the first link on google is good enough to refute you. You don't have to believe me, but you can always do your own research to find out I'm right.
You cited a ranking of countries that was based on Lynn and his colleagues collecting data from childrens hospitals, because IQ is a diagnostic and not a ranking mechanism, and outside of wealthy western countries nobody has done latitudinal studies. If that was the worst thing Lynn had done to generate his data, it would already be fraudulent, but it isn't. Unfortunately, I don't think you actually understand the statistics you're citing.
I don't know what you're talking about. You cited a source upthread that included the Richard Lynn data --- very prominently! --- alongside an online survey site where people sign up, claim a country of origin, and fill out an online survey.
And no, your logic about how any diagnostic can be "ranked" obviously does not hold; it doesn't even make sense. But we've reached the point on the thread where you're trying to axiomatically derive your own psychometrics, so we can probably wrap it up here.
