Want to be a reporter or would you like to buy a report for the best price?
Just Sign Up here!
Privacy guidelines License our content Help
Few subjects arouse as much ire as national IQs. Questions are asked about the cultural appropriateness of the tests, whether they have sufficient scope to assess the different talents of racial and cultural groups, the representativeness and size of the samples, and even whether those results are reported correctly, reported Unz (US).
National scholastic achievements, on the other hand, are greeted with widespread publicity, discussed anxiously in government and educational circles, and sometimes rather naively accepted as an unerring measure of a nation’s educational system. In some ways this is understandable, because PISA and similar studies are well-funded, are global in scope, and repeated at regular intervals, allowing progress to be monitored. Yes, every test can be gamed, and national results vary considerably in coverage, representativeness, and probably also in levels of cheating. However, these are matters for the sort of people who read the supplementary annexes, and persons of that sort cannot be considered normal.
Every test, either “school near” as those designed for PISA or “school far” as designed for intelligence testing, is subject to the same concerns about sampling, measurement invariance, individual item analysis, and the appropriateness of summary statistics. Why the difference in public response to these two different points on the assessment spectrum? Perhaps it is as simple as noting that in scholastic attainment there is always room to do better (or to blame the quality of schooling) whereas in intelligence testing there is an implication of an immutable restriction, unfairly revealed by tricky questions of doubtful validity.
Perhaps it is a matter of publicity. PISA has the money for brochures, briefing papers, press conferences, meetings with government officials. Richard Lynn put his list together in his study, and came up with results that many were happy to bury.
Now we have David Becker taking over the database, and doing the whole thing again. Here is the 3rd major iteration of his revision. He tells me:
In the last six months, I have been able to increase the number of sources used from 253 to 357 and the number of nations from 92 to 123, and also to make many improvements in the methods. At present, the database contains samples to a total of 550,492 individuals.
Of course there are some points of view to make order, but these countries have the highest national IQ:
4. Hong Kong
show source http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/