But you can say that about any country on the list. We don’t know the sample size, so saying that survivorship bias plays a role is speculating.
The IQ tests in question are professional IQ tests which means that, unlike online IQ tests, not every smart ass takes these. In other words, any type of person takes these which is better for data. Kids, adults, elderly, these are the types of people who take these tests. We have to remember that professional IQ tests are often not free, they often cost hundreds of dollars so most of the people who take these kinds of tests are probably doing it out of necessity, most-likely medical necessity.
I don’t know the real numbers they use when they rank countries by their average IQ. But I can see that this topic is sensitive so I will say this, even though Singapore has the highest average IQ it is not the smartest country. That goes to Japan, who is ranked higher on things like school grade averages etc.
I think it’s well established that it does both. This has driven school lunch and breakfast programs for just this reason. The brain is a very expensive organ in terms of calories and growth demand. In famine conditions less is available for the brain. You probably know personally that when you are hungry, it’s the brain’s performance that deteriorates most significantly.
I believe there is a good ‘experiment’ that demonstrates this. A generation of Dutch children born during and immediately after WW2 suffered a severe post war famine. Dutch are a tall people but this group was significantly shorter and of lower average IQ. This is an unverified ‘fact’ that I am remembering right now. I’ll see what I can find.
Do you reality think it’s a sensitive topic? I’ve lived there in the past and competed for them in the World Memory Competitions twice. I have nothing against their educational system, etc. and that’s not why I brought up the survivorship bias… we probably mean something different.
In fact, I think they deserve their position on the list. So, let’s take said list then where they also say:
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/average-iq-by-country/
However, it’s important to remember that IQ isn’t the only measure of intelligence. Nations can also be ranked based on factors such as school test rankings or the number of Nobel Prizes won throughout the years. For example, Singapore has the highest IQ but is not considered the smartest nation in the world. That honor goes to Japan*, which is ranked more highly in school test rankings and the number of past Novel Prizes awarded.
_
*I assume that’s where you got your quote from too
So just like with Hong Kong (108) / Shenzhen (105) you have a lot of people crossing the checkpoint Singapore (108) / Malaysia (92) for work (some even school) every single day. It seems though 8 points IQ got awarded to Singapore during the independence from Malaysia in 1964 (sarcasm)… they average a nice 100 together.
One should also consider that the level of English spoken in Singapore, due to the fact that it was a British colony for over 100 years (1819 - 1942), is excellent. Like it or not, but IQ tests are culturally biased towards the West and English (whether native or L2) speaking countries.
You’re contracting yourself a little here, first you say any person but then it turns into non-recreational test, that is only taken out of necessity, plus you need to have the economic means. Isn’t that what a survivorship bias is? …but again not my point when I say survivorship bias.
The annual Population in Brief report, that was released by the Prime Minister’s Office Strategy Group yesterday, shows that foreigners, permanent residents and new citizens now make up over 40 per cent of the population in Singapore, as of June 2018.
So to clarify, I didn’t mean that sample doesn’t represent the population, so not that kind of survivorship bias (or even selection bias). I have no reason to speculate that the sample isn’t fair and I’m not making that assumption for other countries either.
I’m not saying that the schools select only the best students for the test to purposely skew the results nor other things like the wealth or social status of the parents has much of an impact on whether you’ll take the test or not.
The point is that a representative sample, and there is no reason to believe that it isn’t… like I said that is not my point… you will have to include the aforementioned 40% of the population in your sample.
I hope this makes sense now when you look at the rigid requirements for employment visas and permanent residency in terms of academic achievement. Consider also the extreme cost of living, which again together with Japan it’s one of the most expensive countries in the world.
The survivorship bias I’m talking about is the composition of these expats turned residents. For example, Singapore has German school that lets you graduate with a German Abitur. Just to pick this one example. Let’s compare that to Germany coming in at 99.
There are three types of schools in Germany:
Hauptschule: 9 years total (English in 5th grade)
Realschule: 10 years total (optional 2nd foreign language)
Gymnasium: 13 years total (mandatory 2nd foreign language)
…and that (i.e., “any type of person”) is how you get the nice 99 for German… it’s too bad that it’s not an even 100 but in terms of standard deviation I can live with it. Only the Gymnasium awards the German Abitur though, which is required for university studies.
(Side note in terms of wealth, Singapore’s GDP per capita is twice as high as Germany’s and together with France and the UK, you are talking about one of the leading three economies in Europe.)
Obviously, given the academic requirements for EP and PR in Singapore, it is fair to assume that the majority of parents not only got an Abitur but also at minimum a Bachelors or more likely a Masters / PhD. Same is true for A-levels and O-level, etc as far as expats from the UK, etc.
I’ll stop it here… so in summary, not a survivorship bias as far as the sample but a survivorship bias as far as the population. Also, this reply is only with regards to the aforementioned survivorship bias… I am not saying that the other 60% of the population don’t score high on the test.
Yes, highly - but went waaaay off IUPAC nomenclature, it may pass as hydrogen-oxide (no need for di or mono), or oxygen-hydride, otherwise even short people who drank coconut milk in gallons may find it suspicious. Sorry, professional deformation - I wouldn’t be myself if haven’t noticed something like that.
But if we go further on this stuff, we’re on a racial ground - Elves roll +1 in intelligence, which is a stereotype, yet happens all the time. And trolls get negative points and there’s new edition with additional races that may be even more down the racial downward spiral.
Bear in mind that the papers that claim to detect a statistically significant difference in average IQ between tall and short populations, claim it is very small. A matter of a few points.
This is completely washed out by the differences between the individuals in each population. IQ’s in the Short population likely still range from 75-150 for most people. A small excess in the number of geniuses or a slight deficit in the number of idiots among the Tall population might explain the whole difference.
This explains it. Tall person = bigger surface area = easier target. Also if a small person trips and falls, he hits the ground with a lower velocity. Tall persons have a longer way down so they fall faster and thus the impact is greater.
So there are less dumb tall people, not because they are biologically more intelligent, but because being small increases your stupidity-caused-injury buffer zone
I believe that we have come to a conclusion on this topic. The variance in intelligence between short and tall people is simply the result of the tall ones being too stupid to duck having been culled.
Quite plausible. On a neutron star, if you fall from a height two meters you will hit the ground at close to light speed. In times of famine, such a small advantage might have made the difference between between survival and extinction.
When our ancestors had to flee the ancient home planet before their star went nova, they took with them supplies like unleavened bread - obviously an adaptation to a hi grav environment. The story is actually mentioned in the bible. I believe there is speculation among Anthropologists that things like pancakes, letters, salami etc are vestiges of a time when we lived under the crushing oppression of high gravity.
So, in light of this one can easily understand why Tall people … wait… where was I …?
If there’s a correlation, it’s undoubtedly weak. Everybody in my family, for instance, has an IQ of at least 150, but we’re also all very short. There are also correlations with facial shape (large foreheads) and cranium size.
The difference is considered (among psychologists) to be statistically significant but very slight. Meaning it’s likely to be heavily outweighed by other factors. And it’s just a correlation. There is no theory to justify causation.
Childhood nutrition is known to have a direct effect on cognitive development. My speculation is that this is the underlying difference. Most people who are tall got enough to eat to grow to their full height. Some short people are that way because they were undernourished as children.
I take it you are skeptical of my “high gravity” theory?
There’s plenty to be skeptical about. This thread has given far too much gravity to this one shallow statistic. In general, isolated, incomplete stats like this are too often used to justify conclusions far beyond their reach. Maya was right. It was time to be silly.
- I wouldn’t be myself if haven’t noticed something like that.