IQ of Iranians v/s East Asians:-

As shown in my previous blog that IQ as per TIMMS or PISA for mid-East is 89 IQ. And mid-East is facing several fluoride contamination in ground water, in excess to rest of the world combined. As mentioned and cited that Iran and Saudi Arabia are the worst victims of fluoride contamination in water.

Let me show you the IQ data samples on Iranian population (in optimum living conditions). It will help me show the exact calculations for the geno-typic IQs. Let's calculate what is the average IQ of Iran if it had optimum conditions at par with East Asia.

Both nations do not face mal-nourishment or iodine deficiencies. Yes, there is mild iodine deficiencies in East Asia and Iran, but they are at par on the iodine status. So fluoride contamination in water is the major stuff (out of 3 main IQ decreasing issues) separating Iranians and Chinese. Yes, lead and arsenic also decrease the IQ but only a handful of nations face such problems.

The mean fluoride concentration in Iran is between 2 to 2.5 ppm in cities and 2.4 to 2.8 ppm in rural areas. Large sample sizes.

1. Poldashi and Piranshahr, West Azerbaijan province, Iran :-
Source: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/karimzade-2014.pdf

2. Makoo, Iran:-
Source: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/seraj-2012.pdf

3. Kerman Province, Iran :-
Source: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/poureslami-2011.pdf

4. Iran :-
Source: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/seraj-2006.persian.pdf

What are the results:-

1. West Azerbaijan:- High F (3.94 ppm): IQ of 81, Low F (0.25 ppm): IQ of 104.
2. Makoo:- High F (5.2 ppm): IQ of 88, medium F (3.1 ppm): 89, Low F (0.8 ppm): IQ of 97.7.
3. Kerman:- High F (2.38 ppm): 91.37 ,Low F (0.41 ppm): IQ of 97.8.
4. Iran:- High F (2.5 ppm): IQ of 87.9, Low F (0.4 ppm): IQ of 98.9.


Clearly as you can see that Iranian IQ is converging towards 97-104 in low F regions.

In regions where medium fluoride concentration is 2.5 ppm, IQ is somewhat close to 90 as evident in the articles above, which is the current IQ of Iran as fluoride concentration in Iran is around 2.5 ppm. Average IQ in Iran is likely to shoot up to 97-104 once fluoride contamination in water is removed. And already many regions in Iran show 97-104 IQs.

As shown in my other blog on China, Chinese also score extremely low in high Fluoride regions (<80 as well). Average of China is 95 v/s 90 for Iran as there is lesser fluoride contamination and not because of "evolution or racial supremacy, etc., etc."

Now it is evident that people in mid-East have IQs at par with any other major regions in the world and there are IQ samples covering the same.

If IQ comparison across nations are to be done, it has to be done in identical conditions like showing samples on properly bred children or regions having equal fluoride contamination or equivalent iodine deficiencies or same conditions. Else, IQ reports from multi-racial societies where both ethnicities are living identically.

Not by citing a result of a website on one nation to IQ reports on illiterate tribes in another like how Lynn has done in his book. Just by citing any set of available IQ samples. And calculating average IQs like a Grade 6 student.

Anyone can publish "cherry picked IQ samples" on any nation and come to any conclusions and write a book showing IQ of 80 in East Asia and 105 in Iran, and cite up to 30 articles. There are IQ reports showing different averages in each nation.

IQ of mid-Eastern and North Africans:-

Lynn calculated an IQ of 84 for MENA (Middle East and North Africa). Although most of the nations had IQ calculated via "averaging two nations", the real potential of MENA region is not the same in each region.

Let me start with mid-East. There are 17 nations in mid-East (including Palestine):-

Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, UAE, Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain.

IQ of many nations like UAE and Qatar are well known.

PISA scores of UAE, Jordan, Israel, Turkey and Qatar can be seen here:-

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/46619703.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/48852548.pdf

UAE is 459 reading, 466 science, 453 maths.

Qatar is 372 reading,  379 science, 368 maths.

Jordan is 407 reading, 415 science, 387 maths.

Turkey is 473 reading, 454 science, 445 maths.

Israel is 483 reading, 455 science, 447 maths.

Scores of UAE are consistent in other editions of PISA as well which implied a mean score of 459 and a corresponding IQ of  92.5 IQ on UK norms (520 PISA scores for 100 IQ).

As there are no IQ reports on UAE, PISA should be taken as a proxy for UAE's IQ and not the average result of neighboring nations.

Qatar on the other hand had 373 score implying IQ of 78 IQ.

Jordan has mean score of 403 implying IQ of 83.

Israel has mean score of 462 implying IQ of 93.

Turkey has mean score of 457 implying IQ of 92.

Both Qatar and UAE have 50% and 100% participation in PISA, that is each and every kid in Qatar took PISA test and 50-60% in UAE were chosen (randomly selected by PISA).

Now, UAE has 30% Indian minority which score 30-40 points higher while Qatar has less than 10% Indian minority.

So, average IQ of Qatar is 78 and UAE (Arabs) is around 89. These are pretty much the low scoring nations in mid-East. Performance of both Qatar and UAE is constant in most PISA samples.

TIMMS results are also done on mid-East:-

Egypt: 406 (2003), Bahrain: 401 (2003), Saudi Arabia: 332 (2003), Palestine: 390 (2003), Iran: 422 (1999), 411 (2003), Turkey: 429 (1999), Israel: 466(1999), 496(2003). I will use England: 496 (1999) and New Zealand: 494 (2003) as IQ is calculated with UK norms and England's TIMMS 2003 score is not available.

So, average IQ as per TIMMS (UK norms):-

Egypt: 88, Bahrain: 87.5, Saudi Arabia: 75, Palestine: 85, Iran: 90, Turkey: 93, Israel: 98.

So, we have decent IQ estimates for 10/17 nations in the mid-East. Turkey had similar performance on both PISA and TIMMS while Israel had gap of 5 IQ in PISA and TIMMS which is because Palestine is not a nation as per PISA and included in Israel scores. So, all nations had similar performances on TIMMS and PISA.

Average IQ of mid-East nations:-

Egypt: 88, 90.25 million
Bahrain: 87.5, 1.71 million
Saudi Arabia: 75, 31.52 million
Palestine: 85, 4.68 million
Iran: 90, 78.78 million
Turkey: 93, 78.21 million
Israel: 98, 8.37 million
UAE: 92.5, 10 million
Jordan: 83, 6.83 million
Qatar: 78, 2.11 million

Average IQ of these 10 nations is 88 IQ.

Let's assume the average IQ of remaining nations.

Iraq, Syria, Lebanon should have IQ as Iran and Turkey (90 IQ). Afghanistan will be mid way between Pakistan and Iran (92 IQ),  Oman, Kuwait and Yemen should be same as Saudi Arabia (78).

So, overall IQ of mid-East is 89 IQ as per large scale surveys (not 84 as per Lynn). I will prove that mid-East indeed has higher IQ than South East Asia by TIMMS and every possible study.

Now the question arises, is there any scope of IQ gain up. As mid-East is very rich, there is hardly any scope of IQ increase via mal-nourishment. And as per WHO reports (http://www.who.int/vmnis/database/iodine/iodine_data_status_summary_t1/en/), mid-East does not face iodine deficiency unlike Africa, and is at par with Europe on iodine status.

However, mid-East faces several fluoride contamination in water which dumps down the IQ significantly.

Source (Page 158):- https://books.google.co.in/books?id=BDZStwE2AXkC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=fluoride+contamination+mid-east&source=bl&ots=ALbrihJ5h-&sig=HSP2J53CFvwccLAI0yycHFJ-ZAQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiczoD7tuHPAhXLLyYKHcLFDc4Q6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=fluoride%20contamination%20mid-east&f=false 

As can be seen that mid-East and North Africa, and in particular Saudi Arabia and Iran has the highest fluoride contamination in ground water in the whole world; exceeding East Asia and Europe by a factor of 4x which can bring down the IQ by 7-8 points at the minimum.

I will show later with the data on Iran that people in Iran score 97-104 IQ in controlled regions (where fluoride contamination is controlled) and in all regions of Iran which is the long term genotypic IQ of Iranians. And will show that East Asia also score in 80s in fluoride contaminated areas (though very limited).

Which means that long term IQ potential of mid-East is also 97 (same as Europe and India). Or the difference between Europeans and mid-Easterns on IQ which is 0.05% can be entirely due to environment and not genes.

And before I discuss the genotypic IQs of nations in my coming blogs, here are the environment contamination or factors lowering IQs in many regions:-

1. Europe: Iodine deficiencies in many regions. 

2. India:  Mal-nourishment, vegetarianism, mild fluoride.

3. Mid-East and North Africa: Severe to extreme fluoride, iodine deficiencies.

4. America: Fully immune and most first world conditions.

5. China: Iodine deficiencies in some provinces, very mild fluorosis.  

Iodine deficiencies, fluorosis and mal-nourishment have the largest impact on IQ as it is observed.

Lynn's contrived work on IQ of India:-

Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhenen presented several IQ studies on India's population numbering 13. As previously shown in my other blogs that his work on China and Africa are a result of manipulation of actual data available via "selective citation" or "cherry picking available data". There are many reports showing very low IQs in China and much higher IQs in Africa. Here I will show that his work on India is also a case of "selective citation" and far from being the truth.

As previously shown that present IQ data set on Africa is 78 IQ and in China it is 95 IQ. Though he did arrive at a decent number for China, 97.5; his numbers for Africa were way off and almost anyone (scientist and else) who has reviewed his work has come to the same conclusion.

Anyways, here are his samples on India :-

Based on this data, he calculates an IQ of 82 for India. First of all, his book isn't really a journal publication and rather an independent publication. But even if he had decided to publish this in some scientific journal, the scientific community would not accept it; not because they don't like the numbers and rather because the average IQ based on the table comes out to be 84.5 IQ. He is calculating "average" just by averaging the IQ numbers without really adjusting or weighing it for different sample size of the data (number of people tested) which indicates how carefully the book has been written.

Unlike how he makes a claim in his book to have done meta-analysis of IQ correlating for socio-economic and other factors (the standard ANOVA analysis) as if his work is a result of great award winning complex scientific calculations, in reality he hasn't even bothered calculating "average IQ" from a table properly which even a sixth grader can do.

As his book isn't a scientific publication, such work cannot be criticized at scientific level. And should not be taken as a result of the scientific community.

Anyways, here I will prove that many of his samples are contrived and will cite very high scoring samples on India.

Let me ask a very general question. How should the "average IQ" data-set of a nation look like. Well, it should have unbiased results of tests where people are selected randomly out of a given population irrespective of their caste, gender, religion, profession, etc. It doesn't really make sense to do IQ tests on say, Australian Aboriginals and show the data in average IQ for Australia.

This is what Lynn had done for India. Let me ask, which is the lowest IQ group within India ? Tribals, muslims, lower caste dalits ? Here are the IQ samples covered by Lynn in his book where the tests were only done on tribals, muslims without including the entire population which are clearly biased samples. And they number 3/13.

Mohanty and Babu 1983 (Average IQ: 79):-

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239801334_Bilingualism_and_Metalinguistic_Ability_among_Kond_Tribals_in_Orissa_India

As mentioned in the topic of the research article, the sample has been conducted on "Tribal population" in Orissa. Without any doubt, selection bias of "including only Tribal population" and excluding all "non-Tribals". Which leads to the fact that data is invalid.

Afzal 1988 (IQ of 79, IQ studies conducted in Urdu):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19964938_Consquences_of_consanguinity_on_cognitive_behavior

Abstract: "In order to study the effects of consanguinity on IQ, a survey was conducted among the Ansari Muslims of Bhagalpur residing in suburban and rural areas. Both outbred (N=390 from suburban areas and N=358 from rural areas) and inbred (N's=300 and 266, respectively) children aged 9 to 12 years from socioeconomically middle-class families were administered the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised."

Even in many of his other samples, he is citing the results of the IQ tests of Asians living in India.

Majumdar, P. K., and Nundi, P. C. (1971)
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1974-10149-001
Compared scores of 2 geographically separated Bengali-speaking groups of schoolchildren, grades IX-XI, on Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices. 2,836 Ss from Calcutta and 2,100 Ss from Agartala were tested. Ss from Calcutta were superior to those from Agartala by an average of 7 points.

Agrawal, N., Sinha, S. N., and Jensen, A. R. (1984)

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01068128

Indian Muslim school boys, ages 13 to 15 years, whose parents are first cousins, were compared with classmates whose parents are genitically unrelated on the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices, a nonverbal test of intelligence.

It is well known that people in North Eastern part of India are genetically same as South East Asians and not Indians or South Asians. 

So the question arises, why is he using the results for "Muslims, Tribals, Asian(non-Indian) minorities" in his book.

The obvious answer is "the low IQ results". North East Indians (which are the same as South East Asians), 3 Muslim samples and Orissa Tribal samples are the only samples on India showing IQ less than 80. That's 4/13 samples just on the minority population. 

Even in the Majumdar and Nundi sample, people in India scored 7 IQ points above North East Indians. 80 for North East Indians and 87 for Bengal.

Now the question arises, are there any high scoring IQ samples on India. Yes indeed there are many samples showing 100+ and even more showing 90+ IQ via random testing on India.

SA Khan 2015:-

http://www.jcdr.net/article_fulltext.asp?issn=0973-709x&year=2015&month=November&volume=9&issue=11&page=ZC10&id=6726

Average IQ of school kids in villages near Lucknow in non-dental fluorosis regions was 110 and 100 overall (normal fluoride region and severe fluoride regions combined).

IQ of Ahmedabad (sample size: 190):-
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/trivedi-2007.pdf

Average IQ of villages near Ahmedabad was found to be 104 and 97.  

http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/44025

IQ of Muslims in Aligarh city, Uttar Pradesh (Average IQ of 107)

Source: “Badaruddoza. Inbreeding effects on metrical phenotypes among North Indian Children. Collegicum Antropologicum 28(Suppl. 2): 311-318. (ISSN No. 0350-6134.”)


IQ in Maharashtra (Pune):-

http://www.indianpediatrics.net/feb2004/feb-121-128.htm

86.1 for low birth weight, 92.1 for medium birth weight and 97.2 for normal birth weight.

https://www.indianpediatrics.net/july1999/july-669-676.htm


IQ of control group was 101.38. And LBW was 94.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297722925_Dental_fluorosis_and_urinary_fluoride_concentration_as_a_reflection_of_fluoride_exposure_and_its_impact_on_IQ_level_and_BMI_of_children_of_Laxmisagar_Simlapal_Block_of_Bankura_District_WB_India?_sg=OxEw86Y9iI6rPYqTlpXNxf3sHxsD4oLarEkZXw_AKdiC1SmLw9IzIsEDusa540LU


IQ in Villages in Laxmisagar Village was 108.3 in normal regions and 85–92 in fluoride contaminated areas.


IQ of Chennai, Tamil Nadu:-

Study 1:-

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018494/

IQ of 107 as a community sample. 4 zones in Chennai and 12 schools were selected randomly. Sample size of 717. 606 children belonged to families with less than 6500 INR monthly income. And 130 had illiterate mothers. If anything, the selection bias towards socio-economic status is downward.

Study 2:-

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/oeh.2005.11.2.138


IQ of children was found to be 102. And 95 for those having high lead in blood level.

IQ in Chandigarh, Punjab:-

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767262/


Average IQ is 99. 5 private schools and 5 government schools were randomly selected out of 37 schools. And sample size is 2400.

IQ in 2 rural and 2 urban areas of Punjab:-

http://www.ijres.org/papers/Volume%204/v4-i7/Version-2/G4724854.pdf

IQ in 2 rural areas is 96.2, 90.4. And 2 urban areas is 102, 106. IQ grades are available (0 to 10th percentile, etc.) and online statistical tool is required to read.


Rural areas are in Dera Bassi and Tehsil Kharar. Urban areas is in Fatehgarh Saheb. And Tehsil Kharar.

There are many articles on India showing IQ higher than 90. Even the Lynn's data shows IQ of 86 on India. One can easily conclude that long term IQ potential of India (just by removing mal-nourishment) is 97, same as Europe. And Lynn also estimated the same IQ for Indians in the long run.

Now, lets look at the TIMSS and PISA scores of India (which are much better way of sampling, but do not measure the genes):-

This is an article of India’s TIMSS performance.

Source: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/ser...

Poorest states (not known for IQ) were selected in TIMSS. I will compare India to European nations and South East Asia.

New Zealand: 494, Orrisa(India): 404, Rajasthan(India): 382, Philippines: 378

One standard deviation in TIMSS score is 100 points. Even the poorest Indian states are performing at 85 IQ ahead of Philippines, Saudi Arabia. Overall Indian IQ cannot be less than 85 at any cost as even poorest regions in India are showing 85 IQ on TIMSS.

PISA 2009 reports on India show an IQ of 74-77 in Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, two high scoring states.

PISA sample of India is way off from other data-sets available on India's population.

As India has a school enrollment rate of 96%, TIMSS and PISA for India is the real indicator and not cherry picked IQ samples shown by Richard Lynn. 

Though it was almost conclusive from TIMSS and IQ reports on India that long term IQ of Indians is at par with Europe (97), PISA 2009 results have opened up different possibilities for Indian average IQ or educational systems in India. Detailed PISA results on India are unavailable and it is hard to predict whether Indian PISA takers lacked "cognitive ability" or "mathematical equations" in PISA.  

As the results are contradicting, nothing can be said as of now. And a few more rounds of PISA and TIMSS will make things clear.

On the contrary, IQ and test scores on Indians living in Australia, UK, USA, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Canada, UAE, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Mauritius indicate IQ of 97-105 among average Indian.

As IQ is a better measure of genes than PISA and TIMSS, it is almost certain that current IQ of Indians is 89 and will shoot up to 97 on removal of mal-nourishment.

Fake Chinese IQ studies

  Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, in their famous book cited the results of several studies on IQ of East Asians. As the conclusion made by the scientists had very high implications, a thorough cross check was required. Here I present all the manipulated IQ data on China.

A table was presented by Lynn showing 31 IQ studies on China's population. A claim was made that "there are no samples on Chinese population citing IQ to be less than 95". Here I will present contrary data set on China where average IQ results are less than 90 which as per Lynn's claim do not exist. First lets look at IQ of China which is presented:-

Obviously when the data came into the scientific community, almost everyome was shocked not because of high results, but because of consistency of data. Average IQ in 31 different regions of China was within 10 points.
As it is noticed in IQ testing, average IQ in cities is 15 points higher than rural areas. On top of that, average IQ heavily depends on the people tested. If you were to test factory workers, the average will be 90. University students will show average of 110. So, the scientific community always doubted his work on China.

How did he test Chinese population for IQ ?

A website was created and people were asked to take IQ tests. Unlike African samples where people were downward selected, Chinese IQ was upward sampling of population.

Why do internet users in China have higher IQ than others ? Let's ask a question. What is the internet penetration in China ? It's 45 pc in 2013 and much lower before that. Most probably, the rich ones have access to internet and poor ones do not have. That already selects a population for intelligence. Isn't it.

On top of that, as can be seen in IQ data presented; most samples are in urban areas. Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin and Chongquin which are clearly the top 7 cities alone make up 5710, 6635, 1312, 1070 out of the total people tested. That's 14,000 out of 65,000 people tested, just from the top 7 cities.

Lastly, how easy it is to cheat on internet IQ testing. It's quite easy. The results should not have been published as there is no control over test takers over the internet. There are many websites where even people in Latin America have reported 118 average IQs on many people.

It doesn't really make sense to compare this IQ data on China with Thailand where most samples cited are in rural areas. Better will be to compare the data with Bangkok which shows IQ of 103.

Anyways, here are the low scoring IQ samples on China's population :-

Wang, 2001 (Average IQ of 76-81)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/wang-2001.pdf
Average IQ: 81 and 76

Hong, 2001 (Average IQ of 65-82)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/hong-2001.pdf
Average IQ fluctuates between 65 and 82 for china, depending on amount of fluoride in water. Shandong province, china.

Li, 1995 (Average IQ of 79-89)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/li-1995.pdf
Average iq is in between 79 and 89 for china. Guizhou province, china.

Yang, 1994 (Average IQ of 76,81)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/yang-1994.pdf
Average IQ for china is 76 and 81. Jinan, China.

An, 1992 (Average IQ of 76,84)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/an-1992.pdf
Average IQ for china is 76 and 84. Guyang county, inner Mongolia.

Guo, 1991 (Average IQ of 76,81)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/guo-1991.pdf
Average IQ for china is 76 and 81. Hunan province, china.

Lower results are in mild fluoride regions and higher results are in very optimum conditions.

The question arises, why did Lynn ignore these samples on China's population. Well, if you go out with a propaganda of proving one nation smarter than another, such result manipulation is a must.

On top, these are the samples that are done in very optimum conditions like low fluoride, etc. and in top notch states of China.

Imagine if I cite these article which are pretty much done on rural population of China and compare it with cities in Europe, I will be able to prove that Europeans have average IQ of 105 and East Asians to be 83. Isn't it. Its just a matter of what you want to show to the world.

Here are the IQ results in European cities:-

https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/NationalIQs.aspx

Amsterdam: 109.4, Hamburg: 109.3, Warsaw: 108.

Even in South East Asia, India and Iran; you get IQ data to be 103+ in cities. Urban rural gap is only due to cognitive clustering in urban areas.

IQ in Bangkok: 103, Iran(urban): 105, Lucknow: 110, Ahmedabad: 104. There are several reports covering the same which I will discuss later. If the Chinese IQ data is to be compared, comparison has to be done in urban samples on rest of the world.

Now, it has been proven that IQ dataset of China has also been obtained by selective citation just like any other nation. A question arises as to why East Asians do better on PISA which is an unbiased sample covering entire population randomly and unbiased ?

I will talk about the Chinese. I will talk about Korea, Taiwan and Japan later on. Results of Shanghai and other urban areas were published. Chinese government did not allow PISA to publish the results of other provinces. A statement was made by PISA that "we have done PISA sampling in 12 provinces in China and in some of the poorest regions, you get performance close to the OECD average."

Its a very generalized statement which doesn't really mean anything. "Close to the OECD average". It can be 50 points less or 20 points. Unless, PISA results on China which are held back are released nothing can be said about average IQ of China.

However, results of Chinese in South East Asia are well known and they do not show high IQs.

Let me attach PISA scores for you. Source:https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfin...

On maths PISA:- Singapore scored 573, Malaysia scored 421, Thailand scored 427.

On reading:- Singapore scored 542, Malaysia scored 398, Thailand scored 441.

On science:- Singapore scored 551, Malaysia scored 420, Thailand scored 445.

Mean scores:- Singapore: 555, Malaysia: 413, Thailand: 437. (All in the report).

There are 3 million Chinese in Singapore which is a magnet for cognitive elites of China, 8 million Chinese in Malaysia, 10 million in Thailand.

A common argument given is that Malays and other races pull down the scores in Malaysia. It is well known that "other races do not pull down scores" in SEA and even if they do, the gaps are negligible. It is well evident in Singapore school results which I will discuss later to compare East and South Asian IQs.

For verifying whether there is multi modal distribution in PISA scores in Malaysia, I had to calculate the percentile of scores.

There is a table mentioned in PISA report which is attached above. Or detailed results can be seen here (https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfin...). Page number 308 and 309:-

In Singapore:- 10 percentile score was 432, 25 percentile: 501, 75 percentile: 650, 90 percentile was 707.

In Malaysia:- 10 percentile: 319, 25 percentile: 363, 75 percentile: 474, 90 percentile: 530.

In Thailand:- 10 percentile: 328, 25 percentile: 372, 75 percentile: 476, 90 percentile: 535.

Even top 25 percent of Malaysia has an average PISA score corresponding to 98 IQ that is 87 percentile of Malaysian PISA data (520 is 100 IQ and 100 points is 1 standard deviation as discussed before). If I assume that all these are Chinese (that is each and every person of Chinese decent scored better than other races), how does it lead to high IQ and PISA scores among East Asians. This is the best case estimate.

For decent estimate, average IQ of Chinese in Malaysia: 95 IQ, Thailand: 97 IQ (according to PISA reports).

Performance in PISA level 5 and level 6:-

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfin...

Page 31:-

Singapore: 29% students above level 5 and 6.

Malaysia: 0.9% students above level 5 and 6.

In Malaysia (a nation with moderate education system), “at the absolute maximum” 2.5% Chinese students scored in level 5 and level 6. V/S large majority of Chinese students in Singapore (“minimum 6.5% and maximum 38%”).

You can clearly see East Asian PISA score to be same as Czech Republic level once we include Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore; instead of just concentrating on Singapore which is a magnet for China's cognitive elites.

Chinese IQ in SEA (based on PISA) is 98 (best estimate) and 96 (decent estimate).

And PISA is the most reliable large scale study on IQ.

As IQ of China is unknown and there are contrary studies (some showing very high IQs, some very low IQs) and as large scale studies like PISA on China are unavailable to public; it is resonable to assume that China's IQ will be same as Chinese living in SEA as per PISA reports. Chinese in SEA are net importers of high skill immigration from China unlike China which is a net exporter of high skill immigrants. So, at any cost Chinese IQ cannot be more than Chinese in SEA.

Now what about the people especially the bloggers who post IQ of 115 for China. To be frank, most of them are misinformed. IQ of 115 on China is based on an assumption that presently IQ of China is 105 and China will score 115 due to optimum living conditions and first world environment. That's not the case.

Present IQ data available on China shows 95 IQ or 97.5 IQ as per Lynn's work (which is based on his own calculations). 105 is the long term ceiling of IQ in China.

112 is the PISA IQ for Shanghai which is the highest IQ recorded in China where people are living in absolute optimum conditions. As cities generally score 15 points higher, average in China cannot be more than 105. Even the estimate of 105 comes at the cost of assuming optimum living conditions (excluding iodine deficiency, etc., etc.). Present IQ of China as per the data available is 95 as people are not living in optimum conditions. Many of the states have iodine deficiencies, many have underweight children.

But again if I start optimizing IQs for the rest of the world, most nations would score very high. To be frank, Africa and South Asia are the biggest victims of malnourishment and iodine deficiencies.

While comparing IQ of two nations, you cannot compare an optimised number for one with an unoptimised number for another nation. Isn't it.

So, Lynn's IQ comparisons between Europe and China by taking an optimised number for China (105) and an unoptimised number for Europe (97) is unacceptable and not in lines with the scientific methods of research.

If the data cited on other nations is un-optimised for iodine deficiencies etc.  etc.; why is he comparing it with an optimized estimate for China ? Of-course if you want to propagate a racial fallacy in the public, such stuffs are required. Even nations in Europe face iodine deficiencies at par or higher than people in China and European IQ can also be adjusted to 104, or I can calculate European IQ by taking highest scoring city in Europe, Amsterdam and subtracting 7 IQ like how he is doing for China which will put Europeans at 103. Isn't it.

And rather Europeans face much higher iodine deficiencies than East Asians and I will show the same with appropriate data later on. On top of that, East Asians do not face any mal-nourishment. In the above text, I showed a few samples on East Asia in mild fluorosis regions that the average IQ in such villages is also in low 80s, let alone 100+. If I show East Asian IQ samples where they are done on malnourished population, the results will be very very low (less than 75 IQ).

So, it is funny if he is optimizing East Asian data to 105 and Europe is kept constant at 97 because it is Europe that faces higher environment contamination due to iodine deficiencies, etc.

And remember, the IQ numbers of India, mid-East that is shown in his book is not optimized unlike East Asia.

The main purpose of him writing his book is to get famous in the public by propagating a racial fallacy that is far from the truth. The scientific community does not acknowledge his books which does seem to be a fiction.

I will further prove that average IQ in Iran in optimum living conditions is also 105, same as people in China (in my coming posts). And will present relevant data.

Why Africans are at par with Europeans on intelligence:-

As shown by every possible estimate, average IQ in Africa is 87-92. Average IQ of Europe is 97 (100 for UK, 95 for Southern Europe).

I will also clarify "why Northern Euros have higher average than Southern Euros" later on.

The gap between Europeans and Africans measured via standardized tests as of 2016 is 5-10 IQs.

What is 5-10 IQ as per the results of Raven's Progressive Matrices ? Here is a number of question solved v/s IQ results, done on a very reliable software:-

Total questions: 60,
Number of questions solved: N,

N: 60, IQ: 138
N: 57, IQ: 124
N: 54, IQ: 116
N: 48, IQ: 108
N: 42, IQ: 100
N: 36, IQ: 92,
N: 30, IQ: 84  

N: 28, IQ: 78

The difference between Africans and Europeans on IQ tests is 5-6 questions which is considered a negligible difference. It doesn't really make sense to advertise the fact that one nation solved "mere 5 questions" more than another nation like a "racial propaganda". Anyone knows that by proper tuition and education, anyone can solve 10-20 questions higher than his current performance on IQ tests. Isn't it. And it is well known that Europeans spend much higher on tuition and academic improvement than Africans. 

The gap between the performance of Africans and Europeans on IQ tests can purely be because of "differences in professions" between the two populations or just because of "high skill immigration" and can be "far from being genetic" as mentioned by evolutionary theories propagated by few psychologists and in this article I will show the same with accurate calculations.

First, lets discuss the factor of immigration. UK and USA which are net receptors of high skill immigrants from all over the world, should not by any means be set as a benchmark of IQ.

How does immigrants help increase the IQ.

Here are the school results from UK:-

https://chrisattrill.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/gcse-results-who-are-the-people-that-do-well/

As can be seen in the performance by race in UK, Indian and Chinese minorities in the UK outscore whites by 1 Standard deviation (115 IQ).  Indian and Chinese minority make up 3% of UK. High skill immigration from two Asian nations alone makes up "0.45 IQ" jump in UK. And there are high skilled immigrants from 50 odd nations in UK, most of which score very high on IQ tests.

Imagine what it will do to overall IQ in say Singapore where 40% of the population is "high skill immigrants from all over Asia". It doesn't really make sense to compare IQ results in UK with Africa (one which is net receiver of cognitive elites and another which is a donor).

It does make a significant difference in overall IQs. Take the example of Blacks living in UK.
As shown in the UK results, Africans in UK score at par with white Britishers in schools. 3% population in UK is Africans.
Africans have lost by "0.12 IQ" just because of smart migration from Africa to one white nation, UK (in recent times).

It is well estimated that if you include the effects of high skill immigration "out of Africa" in 1950s and there-after to USA, UK, etc., etc., it will lower the overall IQ of Africans by 1.8-2.3 IQ.

While high skill immigrants from all over Europe, India, China, south East Asia has increased the IQ of UK by "2-3 IQ points".

As can be seen in the UK GCSE results, the Irish minority in UK outscores British whites by 7 IQ. The high skilled immigrants from Ireland alone increase the IQ of UK by 0.7 IQ.

Which means that the IQ difference between UK and Africa (10 IQ points) is inflated due to "high immigration out of Africa" and "high skilled immigration" to UK.

If you remove the high skilled Irish, Indians, Bangladeshi, South East Asian, Africans and Chinese immigrants out of UK; the whites (native to the UK) will score 97 IQ.

If you include all high skill immigrants that have left Africa for calculating African IQ, it will be 92 IQ. So, here you can compare the original IQ potential of Africans and highest scoring white nation in terms of original population (not adjusting for immigrants in and out).



Now, let's compare what the differences in professions can do to "average IQ" data-set.
UK has 20 pc of population studying till university level. Africa has mere 2 pc.
It is well documented that people who attend higher education score 20 points higher (not because they are more intelligent), but because they are trained for problem solving.

This itself can cause an IQ gap of 3.6 points between Africans and Europeans.


Now, lets look at the genius level IQs in Africa. Best is to compare mathematical olympiads (https://www.imo-official.org/results.aspx),  There have been several incidences of African nations (Nigeria) outperforming many white nations and winning medals at IMO which is a clear indication of genius level IQs in Africa, at par with top 0.001 percentile of European population.


So, overall I conclude the following stuff:-

1. IQ published for Africa by Lynn and Vanhenen is obtained by careful selection of low IQ studies, dismissing high IQ studies as such.
2. Long term IQ potential of Africans is same as African Americans, 7 points below Africans in UK which is a case of smart migration.
3. IQ gap between Europe and Africa is unlikely to be because of "evolution" and such gaps can be entirely because of "immigration", "differences in professions", or "differences in breeding patterns" in different populations.
4. Africa has significant population of high IQ individuals (at par with top 0.001 pc whites) and African nations will keep on winning bronze medals at IMO outscoring many white nations. And Africa will be a superpower due to the presence of such "high IQ individuals".

5. Average IQ difference between Europe and Africa is "insignificant" to the extent that it may not even matter.

"IQ and wealth of Nations": A mere Fiction

IQ OF AFRICANS:-

A table has been presented in Lynn's book showing average IQ data sets on African population. Let me take the example of Nigeria and Sierra Leone:-

Lynn and Vanhanen (2006) accorded a national IQ of 69 to Nigeria on the basis of three samples (Fahrmeier, 1975; Ferron, 1965; Wober, 1969), but they did not consider other relevant published studies that average IQ in Nigeria is considerably higher than 70 (Maqsud, 1980a,b; Nenty & Dinero, 1981; Okunrotifa, 1976). It's a clear case of data manipulation.

For reasons not given, Lynn (2006) and Lynn and Vanhanen (2006) only used data from the two lowest scoring samples from Nigeria. Most of the remaining samples show higher scores, but those samples were not included in the estimation of the national IQ of Nigeria and Sierra Leone. 

Likewise, Lynn (and Vanhanen) did not consider several relatively high-scoring African samples from South Africa (Crawford Nutt, 1976; Pons, 1974). It is unfortunate that Lynn (and Vanhanen) did not discuss their exclusion criteria.

Almost everyone who has reviewed the IQ data-set on Africa has come to the conclusion that African average IQ is 78 (UK norms).

Even data on other African nations have been shown by manipulation (showing lowest available results). There are many samples on African average IQ where the results are 80+, but all of them have been excluded by Lynn on the basis of high IQs. One such sample is 82 (Wicherts, et al., 2010). 

If there are 15 samples shown on Africa with average IQ of 67, there are many such samples with much higher IQ as well. 

Let's look at the few of the samples considered by Lynn. 

1. Wober's (1969) sample of factory workers.

2. Verhaegen's (1956) sample of uneducated adults from a primitive tribe in the then Belgian Congo in the 1950s.

3. Owen's large sample of Black South African school children tested in the 1980s.

4. 17 Black South Africans carefully selected for their illiteracy by Sonke (2001).

5. A group of uneducated Ethiopian Jewish children, who lived isolated from the western world in Ethiopia and immigrated to Israel in the 1980s (Kaniel & Fisherman, 1991).

As can be seen in Lynn's sample on African population, many of his sample are "selected for uneducated tribes", "illiteracy" and are not representative of whole population.

Lynn's work on average African IQ is a clear case of data manipulation where he is clearly taking lowest available samples most of which are biased.

Now, where does it put the African average IQs. As of 2016, average IQ in Africa is 80. As Africa faces a lot of mal-nourishment, long term IQ potential of Africa is 87-92.

It has also been confirmed by PISA reports broken down by race in USA.This article discusses US PISA scores by race:-

http://isteve.blogspot.in/2013/12/overall-pisa-rankings-include-america.html

Asian Americans: 548, Whites: 518, Multi-racial: 507, US average: 492, Hispanics: 465, Africans: 434.

Africans score 84 points behind whites in PISA in USA. Almost entire population has been covered via random sampling and this is the best intellectual result available. 100 points is one standard deviation.

IQ of African Americans: 0.84 standard deviation behind US whites. Or 88 IQ, probably down by 4-5 IQ points because of poverty in black community, etc. Whites do spend 4-5x higher on tuition than blacks in USA which can completely change the PISA results. However for a lower case estimate of African American IQ, I will assume that "the racial PISA gaps in USA is only genetic, not because of differences in amount of spending on tuition". 

Now, an argument is given by "race realists" that 15% blacks in USA have mixed with whites. It is a completely illogical argument. Most of the blacks who have mixed with whites had much high IQs to an extent that racial mixing did not alter African American IQs by any significant value. For a black man to marry a white women, he needs to be equally endowed or have a decent status in the society probably at par with the girl he is marrying. Average or low IQ blacks haven't really mixed. Only the smart ones have been breeding with whites.

Yes, USA has witnessed high IQ immigration from Africa; but it is unlikely to change African American IQ by more than 0.25 IQ as majority were not selected for IQs.

Even if I was to assume that blacks have been mixing with whites randomly in USA, it will still put average African IQ at 86 which is the absolute lower limit of pure African American IQ.

As shown in the data-set on African IQs, average IQ in Africa is 78-82 as of 2016. Long term genetic IQs of Africans on removal of mal-nourishment is at 87-92 IQ (same as Africans in USA who were not selected for intelligence).     

"IQ and wealth of Nations": A mere Fiction

IQ EVOLUTION IN COLD WEATHERS:-

Now comes his famous theories on "how people evolved on intelligence by living in cold weathers". All of it has been proven to be garbage and the scientific community does not acknowledge his theories at all. There are people with genius level IQs in Africa and people with IQs less than 70 in East Asia. If temperature was the sole reason for intellectual differences, there would be no genius level IQs in Africa.

The matter of the fact is that, average IQ deficit can purely arise due to differences in breeding patterns. If low IQ population in a nation A breeds twice as fast than low IQ population in nation B, it can cause IQ gap of 20 points in 6-7 generation.

Secondly, most well acknowledged reasons for lower IQs in Africa vs Europe is "out of Africa" theory. All humans have come out of Africa and there are archaeological evidences. Suppose humans decide to colonize Mars in 100 years or so. What will be the IQs of the astronauts that will board the mars spaceship. Of-course, they will be much smarter than general population as obviously a criminal will be unable to make it to a space program. After 1000 years when humans will have a big colony on Mars, there would be an IQ deficit of 30 points between martians and earthlings. It doesn't really mean that martian atmosphere has caused the gap. There is a great reason to believe that people who moved out of Africa had higher IQs than natives because smart ones are more likely to cross the rivers in order to migrate from one continent to another.

All this is assuming that Africans have lower average IQs than Europeans. I will hereby prove that they don't have lower IQs and will support it with relevant data.

Best nail on the coffin on his IQ evolution theories is India and China. In both these giga-nations, people who live towards the South are perceived to be smarter than those who live in the north or in cold weathers.

Introduction:-

A controversial book had been published in 2006 by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhenen "IQ and Global Inequality". As the book had large following and many people have taken it as a truth, a thorough analysis of the work done and more importantly "IQ data cited" was required. Here I present the fake and manipulative data presented by the above mentioned scientists and how their work is a mere fiction and far from being the truth.

Here are the topics I will include in each blog:-
1. IQ evolution in cold weathers.
2. IQ of Africans.
3. Why Africans are at par with Europeans on intelligence.
4. Fake Chinese IQ studies.
5. Lynn's contrived work on IQ of India.
6. IQ of mid-Eastern and North Africans.
7. IQ of Iranians vs East Asians.
8. Low IQ data-set on China.
9. IQ of South East Asians.
10. (Many more, TBC).

Most important conclusions that I will make is that world's population do not differ on "average IQs" and even if there is a gap, it is mainly due to cognitive clustering and other non genetic factors.

On top of that, I will disprove almost entire work of Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhenen, by giving proper data sets of IQ measurements.

Note: All my calculations for normal distribution has been done on this online calculator. http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=67817f2e01eecd366e6d73ac7a71bcd1