Lol Another Savage comment dayumm!! This thread has enthralled and entertained me to no end. Levity provided by our Jai Hind resident friends.
Indian Economics thread.
- Thread starter styx
- Start date
- Status
Interesting link.
China is 4th in the world with an average IQ of 104.1 for 1.4 billion people (Japan is first with an IQ score of 106.48)
On the other hand, India is 143rd on the world has an average IQ score of 76.24 lol
To give you a further idea on how ridiculous is the thought of India competing with China, consider this:
On the IQ score, India is closer to the 193rd in the world (of a total of 199 countries..), Nicaragua which has 52.69, than with China which has 104.1
TLDR: India should look to compete with Nicaragua and forget about competing with a 1.4 billion population with an average IQ score of 104.1.
As all studies show that smart couples birth smart children, if it would happen, systemic migration to China should only be allowed from:
Japan (IQ 106.48)
Province of China, Taiwan (IQ 106.47)
Singapore (IQ 105.89)
HK, China (IQ 105.37)
and
(notice the drop..)
South Korea (IQ 102.35)
Last edited:
Can we please return to topic? Thanks.
Since talking about IQ may not be politically correct in many circles, PISA scores have served as a great proxy.
If you compare the two lists, you'll see the close correlation.
No doubt India's number will improve as nutrition gets better. However, the biggest predictor of educational success is a country's female literacy rate and India is still very far behind. These are generational changes so
One key point worth noting is that important scientific breakthroughs are done by people at the extreme top end of the IQ scale. This bodes well for Confucian/East Asian countries as breakthroughs confer/translates into true competitive edge.
I'll forward a German study on top-tier genius distribution when I find it.
---------------------
When one also considers the case of India, the situation is even more bleak. Two Indian states – Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh – in the 2009 PISA exercise. Although they were among the best-performing states in India, they were ranked in the bottom three PISA participants for all three criteria.
On the topic of IQ and economic growth, there is a lot of literature suggesting that there is a close link so it's a legitimate topic, IMO.
But I don't think you should take numbers showing India whatever low IQ number they are usually given very seriously.
Remember that India has (still!) very high stunting rates and malnutrition, which massively depresses intelligence. If you look at diaspora Indians, even those from "lower" castes, then they do pretty well economically by the 2nd and 3rd generation.
Take Singapore. By 1990, Indians were earning almost 90% of ethnic Han Chinese and this was before the great wave of skilled Indian migration had begun in earnest. Most of the Indians in Singapore were offspring of "lower" castes or even indentured servants who migrated from Malaysia, put there by the British to do menial work.
So, while India has a lot of problems, I wouldn't take their IQ numbers very seriously since you have to partial out stunting rates/malnutrition first. Same goes for PISA insofar as it's a proxy for intelligence (if you believe standardised tests measure intelligence, which I am not so sure of).
But I don't think you should take numbers showing India whatever low IQ number they are usually given very seriously.
Remember that India has (still!) very high stunting rates and malnutrition, which massively depresses intelligence. If you look at diaspora Indians, even those from "lower" castes, then they do pretty well economically by the 2nd and 3rd generation.
Take Singapore. By 1990, Indians were earning almost 90% of ethnic Han Chinese and this was before the great wave of skilled Indian migration had begun in earnest. Most of the Indians in Singapore were offspring of "lower" castes or even indentured servants who migrated from Malaysia, put there by the British to do menial work.
So, while India has a lot of problems, I wouldn't take their IQ numbers very seriously since you have to partial out stunting rates/malnutrition first. Same goes for PISA insofar as it's a proxy for intelligence (if you believe standardised tests measure intelligence, which I am not so sure of).
BTW, despite India's latest quarterly growth rate of ~4%, they are still below even mediocre trendlines post-2018.
Note this is inflation-adjusted 2018-chained rupees. At this rate, it doesn't look they will catch up to ~7% trendline growth rate path that they had prior to 2018, ever. That is, if you believe the official data, which e.g. Arvind Subramanian does not.
Note this is inflation-adjusted 2018-chained rupees. At this rate, it doesn't look they will catch up to ~7% trendline growth rate path that they had prior to 2018, ever. That is, if you believe the official data, which e.g. Arvind Subramanian does not.
You can't make an exception for India just because you are an Indian.
Absurd.
Earnings have little to do with IQ. How many of the most intelligent scientists and thinkers in history were the richest?
How many kings, queens, emperors, politicians, tycoons and their heirs were rich?
You can't compare with Singapore because it acts as an autocratic tax evasion and money laundering hub. In Hong Kong, a property agent or insurance agent earns more than a TSMC fab operator. My understanding is that a property agent really does not require much in the form of specific knowledge or thinking or skills that any third world country can not supply.
Not just any third world country can produce a TSMC, UMC, MediaTek, Transcend or the numerous other IT hardware parts, components and system designers and manufacturers that Taiwan or Korea has produced.
If you talk about Singapore, the Malays and all other Muslims have always been systematically targeted and discriminated against. It has always been the Israel of the East and an avowedly pro Israeli entity. Despite that, Malays in Singapore earn more than Chinese in China or Indians in India, on average. This is a misleading statistic because, in the first place, even the lowest possible salary for an entry level admin job in Singapore would fetch more in salary than middle aged salarymen in India could or maybe they could do in China, on average.
If we look at all the Chinese, Malay and Indian majority countries on their own, we might obtain better datasets. The Chinese majorty societies like Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Macao, China usually are richer than Malay majority societies Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia and Phillipines, and those are usually richer than Indian majority societies such as India, Sri Lanka. You could add Fiji, Mauritius or Guyana as interesting datasets but nothing more than that should be concluded from economic numbers.
Ukraine or Russia are more technically advanced than a Hong Kong or Macao, I would guess, but unable to confer that advancement into economic development. Same is true of Australia or New Zealand, Denmark or Netherlands in comparison with let's say, China or Russia.
They should not conflate all of Asia with East Asia/Confucian societies. North Korea, as an hermit, isolated regime, continues to underperform.
The only schoolchildren who outperform Western schoolchildren on rigid tests are East Asian, maybe partly, due to their rigid schooling systems. Japan and other developed Asian countries are beginning to shed their dogmatic, rigid approach to adopt a more flexible one. That's why you are beginnng to see those democratic East Asian countries slip up in these rankings in recent years.
There is nothing that binds Asia together. Nothing at all.
Why should Saudis form closer ties to Singapore or Japan than to Egypt, Ethiopia or Sudan?
Why should Japanese form closer ties to Iran than the USA?
Why should China form closer ties to India than to Cuba or Belarus?
Just being Asian is not a compelling enough reason since there's nothing else binding them together. They do not even know what it means to be Asia as opposed to an African or a European. These are just political boundaries. You might as well call it Eurasian-Afro continent or supercontinent.
The other continents being Americas and Australia.
And no, none of India's neighbours would like to see a stronger India. They'd much rather see an India that is much weaker but thanks to Western backing, the exact opposite has happened. Meanwhile, Chinese foreign policy, as before, has suffered a setback in the Pacific. Chinese foreign policy experts are in need of some education. Their first venture into the South Pacific has failed.
They are unable to deal with a weak, backward, smaller India to its south. The Himalayas have saved them much trouble. Worse yet, the Chinese foreign policy ensures that right in their doorstep brews a hotspot for trouble in Taiwan with Japan and Korea under the boots of Amercans, who reside across the ocean some 8-10,000 km away.
- Status