Are you saying the data are surprising, or that they're wrong?
Note, I'm not saying IQ is a bad measure. In fact from what I've seen, IQ is probably the best measure of ability we have (it's not a coincidence that the average nobel nobel laureate has an IQ of 140.) It correlates nicely with a lot of things you would expect. Although it's still far from a perfect measure.
Anyway, I'm saying the study in that wikipedia article is nonesense on the face of it.
An IQ that low doesn't imply what you think it does. It makes it hard for someone to handle life in a highly regimented society, where not knowing the difference between "Walk" and "Don't Walk" will get you killed in a week. But a person with an IQ of 50 will end up with the intelligence of a nine-year-old, and under some circumstances, you could expect a nine-year-old to, say, dress himself and forage for food.
It is known that IQs are culturally biased. Residents of Zimbabwe and Equatorial Guinea aren't functionally retarded but they aren't good at taking IQ tests and they happen to live in a society where it is impossible to generate wealth because of insane autocrats.
It's also known that non-biased tests, like remembering a sequence of numbers and reciting it backwards, exhibit the same differences in scores.
The political and economic freedom of Western Europe and its friends is substantially the result of historical accident -- as is the poor state of Africa. Many of the post-colonial nations experienced autocratic catastrophe, seemingly in proportion to the degree in which industrialism was a jump for them.
If you want tell me what ethnic group you are descended from, I would be happy to tell you how stupid you are based on some unhappy incident in your people's history. I, for one, have a lot of German in me. Are Germans smart for their rockets or dumb for their Fuhrer?
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/magic-o...
" Many of the post-colonial nations experienced autocratic catastrophe, seemingly in proportion to the degree in which industrialism was a jump for them."
False. China, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, North India? You need more explanatory variables, here. Especially given that their average income mostly declined after the colonial era. I'm sure these countries would have been better off with a stronger tradition of the rule of law, but I don't know that there's a sensible argument for saying that colonies suffered, and Europe benefited, from colonizing (did any European country make a net profit on their colonies?)
"If you want tell me what ethnic group you are descended from, I would be happy to tell you how stupid you are based on some unhappy incident in your people's history."
You misunderstood me. I'm talking about what you'd expect of groups, which obviously average in a lot of ordinary and a few extraordinary people. Why are you trying to make this personal? Why would I feel smart or dumb for being part of a given group? If I know that most people of my ethnicity and gender are half a foot shorter than I am, does that make me any less tall?
Furthermore, the colonial influence was restricted, in the case of the larger nations, largely to the control of trade (mostly, Opium).
The colonization of Northern India was fraught with centuries of oppressive rule, rebellion, civil war, an eventual overthrow, and then a massive schism and religious conflict. Millions died. India was the crown jewel of the British empire for much of it's history, and brought massive profits to, if not the empire that large, than certainly the merchants running the show.
China was decimated, first by the Taiping rebellion (in part instigated by Christian missionaries), then by the Opium trade, then by Japanese imperial ambitions (which, I may remind you, were completely non-existent until the USA force open the ports of Japan), then by the civil war, then by the Maoists and the ill-conceived and executed model of western modernization. China has been the manufacturing center of the world for decades now, benefiting, largely, so called first-world nations such as ours and as a result the population is suffering the consequences of a terribly polluted land.
The leadership of Japan lead it into world war 2, and millions of it's people died because of it. In the era immediately preceding the opening of Japan to trade, it was one of the most peaceful countries in the world, having no major external conflicts, and no major civil wars since the Sengoku period.
I don't see why your examples imply that jsnx is false. On the balance they seem to support the statement, and it wasn't claimed that all or even most of them would, simply many.
> > I would be happy to tell you how stupid you are based > > on some unhappy incident in your people's history. > You misunderstood me...
My point is, many of the "smart" peoples of the world were embroiled, not too long ago, in the pleasures of fascism. Consider also the Chinese -- they are smarter than all of us. What kind of government have they got? Not one characterized by its trust of the people...
The most notorious insane autocrat of recent times appeared in the country with arguably the most impressive intellectual tradition.