Lynn's dataset on IQ of China in "Race Differences in intelligence"

As shown previously that Lynn's data-set on Africa is carefully selected for illiteracy, etc. In his book "Race differences in intelligence" (https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.pdf), he has mentioned 10 research studies on IQ of China. The other article written by Lynn, "Intelligence across 31 regions of China" is an internet based result and completely unreliable. The link is: emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Differences-in-intelligence-across-thirty-one-regions-of-China-and-their-economic-and-demographic-correlates.pdf

On many internet based websites, people across nations have reported much higher average IQ. Like for eg., "http://iq-test.co.uk/stats/"  average IQ data-set on people who have conducted IQ tests on this website are presented. Many nations score above 105. All European nations above 105. Brazil at 114, Spain and Russia at 110 and even South Africa with 70% African population at 104. And sample size or number of people who have took the test here is also very high. As mentioned, it is not so difficult to cheat on a computer as you can use calculators, etc., etc.

Anyways, Lynn has also presented results from "manual IQ testing" on China. Page number 82 in the link above is a collection of such studies. As I previously proved that virtually all samples on Africa were selected for illiteracy, in case of China they are done on selected for literacy kind of people.

In case of South Asians and North Africans, he has also presented IQ studies done on "high school and university students" on page number 61. As expected the IQ results are much higher. However, he refuses to considers these samples as they are done on university students or high school kids which are not representative of general population. But in case of China, that is not the case. Not only he is considering the results as legitimate, he is also manually increasing the IQ reported which is not really reliable at all. Anyways as his work seems to be politically motivated, it isn't a surprise if he is using IQ results from university students in China and comparing it to "tribes, etc." in other places.

His first citation is "Li, D., Jin,Y., Vandenberg, S. G., Zhu,Y., and Tang, C. (1990). Report on Shanghai norms for the Chinese translation of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised. Psychologi-cal Reports, 67, 531-541." Showing average IQ of 107.

The article is publicly available. http://prx.sagepub.com/content/67/2/531.full.pdf+html

No matter how many times I have read the article on online and after purchasing the journal, I never came across the fact that average IQ cited in this article is 107.

A table is mentioned regarding percentage distribution of IQ scores as follows (Page 536 in the journal):-

IQ                             Classification              Number of subjects                  

130 and above          Excellent                            15                                            

120-129                    Good                                  51                                                   

110-119                    High average                      108                                          

90-109                      Average                              325

80- 89                       Low average                      96 

70- 79                       Borderline (critical)           50

69 and below            Mentally deficient             15 

Total                                                                    660

As actual IQ data is unavailable and only distribution of scores is shown, it is impractical to assign a number 107 to the results. Secondly, if you look at the distribution it is balanced around 100 and not 107.

Even mentioned in Table 6 of the article, 174 samples had average IQ above 110 and 486 below 110. Which means that is almost impossible that average IQ in this research article will be perceived as 110. So, his data-set is completely wrong/miscalculation.

Data number 8 and 9 are from one article. Citation, "Geary, D. C., Liu, R, Chen, G-R, Salts, S. J., and Hoard, M. K. (1999). Contributions of com-putational fluency to cross-national differences in arithmetical reasoning abilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 716-719"

Lynn mentions following things about these articles:-

"Row 8 gives an IQ of 103 for a sample of 17-year-olds at high school in Shanghai compared with a sample of 55 American high school students in Columbia, Missouri. Row 9 gives an IQ of 113 for a sample of college students at the East China Normal University in Shanghai compared with a sample of 239 American college students at the University of Missouri."

What kind of an idiot will use IQ test results from "East China Normal University" as a proxy for general IQ of a population. This is a university ranking table from China: http://www.shanghairanking.com/Chinese_Universities_Rankings/Overall-Ranking-2015.html 

"East China Normal University" is ranked in top 30 universities in China. It is far from representative of general population as only the best students in China can get admission into such a highly ranked university. And only an idiot would use such samples. Even IQ samples on Stanford, MIT and top 10 US universities show IQ of 125+. So if this data sample is to be compared, it shouldn't be compared to "illiterate tribes" in other nations.

Data number 4, "Geary, D. C., Hamson, C. O., Chen, G-R, Liu, R, Hoard, M. K., and Salthouse, T. A. (1997). Computational and reasoning abilities in arithmetic: cross-generational change in China and the United States. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 425-430."

Lynn mentions, "Row 4 gives an IQ of 104 for 12- and 18-year-olds in Shanghai compared with Americans in Missouri and Georgia. On 10 arithmetic tests of computation and arith-metical reasoning the Chinese scored higher by an average of 1.37d, the equivalent of 20 IQ points. This study also reports a comparison of the performance of elderly Chinese (N=56, age=66) and Americans (N=47, age =70) in which the Chinese obtained a lower mean IQ than the Americans by 8 IQ points"

First of all, the sample is done on American and Chinese population, not solely on China.  The article is available on a US university site for general viewing, "http://faculty.virginia.edu/cogage/publications2/1997/Computational%20%20&%20Reasoning%20Abilities%20in%20Arithmetic.PDF"

If you go to table number 1, you can see the overall results.

China: 121 IQ for grade 6, 120 IQ for grade 12, 105 IQ for adults.

USA: 116 IQ for grade 6, 118 IQ for grade 12, 113 IQ for adults. 

So, not only Chinese test takers and rather even the American test takers obtained way higher IQs. So why not use this IQ data-set for American IQ ? Anyways, it is clearly mentioned in the article on page 426 in the journal,

" Here, groups of comparably educated Chinese and American college students and older (57- to 8S-year-old) adults were administered a battery of psychometric tests, including measures of computational arithmetic (e.g., 45+83+ l9), perceptual speed (e.g., speed of reading numbers), and spatial abilities."

Clearly once again, results from university graduates are used. Only 10 pc of China or USA makes it to universities and you can expect the overall IQ to be much higher, which is the case with both USA (IQ of 116,118,113) and China (IQ of 121,120,105) . 

So, is it representing general population or just the university graduates ?

Even if you compare IQ difference between Chinese and US test takers based on this sample, overall IQ for Chinese should be less than that of US test takers. As the difference is +5,+2,-8.

Lynn is reporting it to be 104 IQ which is incorrect because as per the research paper, relative to whites, the Chinese scored lower and not higher on IQ.

So, indeed most of his samples on China are done on "university students" etc. and 100 pc unreliable samples.

How reliable is PISA?

    A very reliable and optimum way of doing intellectual measurement on world's population has come out as PISA test or Program for International Student Assessment. The question arises, how reliable is the PISA sample ? First let me re-state the sampling method of PISA.

PISA sampling method:- PISA asks for the educational boards to present a list of schools in the country. It then selects a specific number of schools randomly. After that, up to 30 students each are selected from each school and mean scores for test takers are presented. 

On first attempt, it may seem that "two-step randomization in sampling" ensures that indeed a random person is tested. there are a large number of sampling errors that can arise due to following reasons:-

1. Non-uniformity of student population in schools across a nation:-

Let me give the example of Qatar. An expert by the name of rec1man has published Qatar school rankings on http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-puzzle-of-indian-iq-a-country-of-gypsies-and-jews/

The PISA scores for top 30 schools are as follows:-

Science, Math, Reading scores

1. Al-Khor Indian Stream, ( GEMS ) = 566, 592, 604 = 113 IQ = Indian Hindu technicians and Engineers of NGL
2. The International School of Choueifat ( SABIS ) = 554, 562, 565 = 109 IQ = Lebanese Xtian
3. Doha College Private ( British Embassy ) = 572, 553, 563 = 109 IQ = UK
4. DPS Modern Indian School ( Delhi Public School Society ) = 552, 538, 563 = 107 IQ = Indian Hindu
5. Qatar Academy ( US educators ) = 540, 547, 562 = 107 IQ
6. American School of Doha, ( US Embassy ) = 553, 546, 559 = 108 IQ
7. Park House English ( UK ) = 568, 528, 552 = 107 IQ
8. Birla Public School = 586, 539, 549 = 108 IQ = Indian Hindu
9. Qatar Intl Private School ( UK ) = 539, 529, 540 = 105 IQ
10. Al Bayan Girls = 481, 464, 516 = Muslim Arab = 98 IQ
11. Cambridge Intl Private School = 531, 484, 514 = 101 IQ
12. Doha Modern Indian School ( Jai Gopal Jindal ) = 554, 525, 514 = 104 IQ = Indian Hindu
13. Al-Khor British Stream ( GEMS ) = 507, 505, 503 = 102 IQ
14. Dukhan English School ( UK ) = 529, 501, 500 = 102 IQ

15. Debakey High School for Health ( USA ) = 492, 467, 493 = 98 IQ

16. Qatar Canadian School = 451, 456, 491 = 95 IQ
17. MES Indian School ( Muslim Education Society ) = 484, 469, 490 = 97 IQ = Indian Muslim
18. Ideal Indian School Girls, ( Muslim ) = 481, 450, 489 = 96 IQ = Indian Muslim
19. Sudanese School = 463, 411, 488 = 93 IQ , remarkably high for black-arab mullatos
20. Al Arqam = 454, 451, 484 = 95 IQ
21. The Gulf English = 468, 448, 482 = 95 IQ
22. Philipine School = 466, 461, 480 = 96 IQ
23. Jordanian School = 446, 422, 472 = 92 IQ
24. Tunisian School = 459, 436, 463 = 93 IQ
25. Lebanese School ( Muslim ) = 444, 501, 463 = 96 IQ
26. Middle East Intl = 484, 452, 461 = 95 IQ
27. Al Andalus = 446, 397, 454 = 90 IQ
28. Ideal Indian School, boys ( Muslim ) = 462, 465, 453 = 94 IQ = Indian Muslim
29. Egyptian School = 463, 435, 434 = 92 IQ
30. American Academy = 462, 434, 434 = 92 IQ

Qatar, 153 school average = 379, 368, 372 = 81 IQ

 Though the writer is calculating PISA IQ on 500 mean, 100 standard deviation. The real IQ has to be calculated at 518 mean, 100 standard deviation. 518 is the score for White Americans which is used as a standard for calculating IQ.

Anyways, the PISA procedure of calculating the mean scores for all schools isn't very reliable. If you look at many of the top 30 schools in Qatar, they enroll 3-4x more students than poor scoring schools.

The two GEMS school in Qatar are among the biggest schools as well and have 7x more students than smallest schools. If overall PISA score for a nation is to be calculated, it has to be done by "weighing for school size".

In Singapore, 167/171 schools participated in PISA. On one hand, schools from National University of Singapore (NUS High School of mathematics) and Nanyang Girls High School which are among the top schools besides Raffles Institute, have enrollment of 980 and 1500 students. There are large number of schools which have school enrollment as high as 7000 students.

Why does it matter ?

Well, differences in school size (unaccounted by PISA) can cause up to 10-15 IQ variation in overall overall reported scores of a nation.

Take the example of Qatar school rankings. Two GEMS schools scored 592 and 505 on maths PISA ranking in the top 30/153. These schools have student population 3x higher than national average. 

But only 30 students from these schools will be considered in PISA sample. There may be a few schools where population is 5x below national average. Even in those schools, only 30 students will take part.

If I am to count these Qatar GEMS schools as 3 schools (consistent with their school enrollment size), the average maths score of Qatar will jump to 376 from 368 (1.3 IQ jump).

In many nations, bigger sized schools have better facilities, better education and will have better scores which will be under-represented in PISA as one school is counted as one (irrespective of how much students are studying there) in PISA calculations. 6-7 schools can cause a gap of 8 IQ points on PISA sample.
In many nations, bigger sized schools are reserved for the poor people and in this case the low IQ population will be under-represented in PISA's calculation.
So, PISA will show an IQ gap as high as 17 IQ points between these two kind of nations even when there isn't any real IQ gap. Just because of poorly done work. 

In case of Singapore, Nanyang Girls High school and NUS High School score 121 IQ and have 2.2x lower school enrollment than national average. Just the PISA miscalculation on these 2 schools for "not accounting school size" has caused a jump of 0.25 IQ in Singapore's overall score.

Imagine what 20 such schools can do. So, PISA does have a lot of errors in it's work. When we are talking about getting IQ sample across nations which do not differ more than 4-5 IQ, such a big miscalculation or poorly done work is extremely unreliable.

2. Sending a list of schools to PISA:- 

It is up to the government which list of schools is sent to PISA. In Qatar, 153 schools participated and has the highest percentage of population tested in any nation. In both Singapore and Qatar, all schools participated in PISA.

Imagine if Qatar had decided to send a list of top 30 schools to PISA. It would be able to show an IQ of 103 (as per rec1man's calculation) v/s 81 IQ currently.

3. Un-attending school kids in PISA:-

In many cases, large number of students do not come for PISA exam. Even if bottom 20% of school kids are absent on PISA day, it can cause a jump of 10 IQ points in school's results. 

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA-2012-technical-report-final.pdf
Page 185.

In many nations, only 80% of kids that were selected by PISA gave PISA exam.

It is entirely possible for any educational administration to work out and cheat "the PISA test" and show up to 28 IQ higher than it should be. 

IQ of South East Asians:-

As suggested by Richard Lynn that South East Asians are fourth smartest group of people after East Asians, Europeans and Eskimos. Their PISA and TIMSS does not show the same.

Nations in South East Asia vs population:-

Brunei: 0.45 million
Cambodia: 15 million
East Timor: 1.2 million
Indonesia: 251 million
Laos: 6.557 million
Malaysia: 30 million
Myanmar: 51 million
Philippines: 101 million
Singapore: 5.5 million
Thailand: 65 million
Vietnam: 94 million

Total population: 623 million

PISA scores: http://isteve.blogspot.sg/2013/12/overall-pisa-rankings-include-america.html

White US: 518, SD: 100. (100 IQ)

Vietnam: 516, Thailand: 437, Malaysia: 413, Indonesia: 384.

TIMSS score:-
There is a table mentioned in http://raceandiqmyths.blogspot.sg/2016/10/iq-of-mid-eastern-and-north-africans.html

England: 496, SD: 100. (100 IQ)

Thailand: 467, Indonesia: 405, Philippines: 360, Malaysia: 514.

It is sufficient to focus on these 5 nations as these 5 nations make up 540 million out of 623 million population.

IQ of South East Asian nations:-
(*Note: I am using online normal distribution tool http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=67817f2e01eecd366e6d73ac7a71bcd1 to do calculations and can be cross verified)

Vietnam: 99 (PISA)
Thailand: 88 (PISA), 95 (TIMSS)
Malaysia: 84.5 (PISA), 103 (TIMSS)
Indonesia: 80 (PISA), 87 (TIMSS)
Philippines: 79 (TIMSS)

Most results on PISA and TIMSS across multiple edition are same.

Overall IQ (average for TIMSS and PISA):-
Vietnam: 99 IQ, 94 million
Thailand: 91.5 IQ, 65 million
Malaysia: 93.75 IQ, 30 million
Philippines: 79 IQ, 101 million
Indonesia: 83.5 IQ, 251 million

Overall IQ for SEA: 87 IQ

As per PISA and TIMSS, IQ in SEA is slightly (one or two points below) MENA region which has IQ of 88. And marginally above India which has IQ of 86. However unlike MENA which suffers from extreme fluoride contamination and India which suffers from extreme malnourishment, the reasons for lower IQ in SEA is unknown.

260 million popultion of SEA is Malays. In Singapore and Malaysia, Indian and Chinese minorities outscore Malays on IQ tests, education and economy by a decent margin.

So, based on my estimates and calculations; SEA is fifth smartest group after East Asians, Europeans, Mid East and South Asians. Eskimos are too small in numbers to be considered as a major group.

Low IQ data-set on China:-

As mentioned numerously in my previous blogs that Richard Lynn's book is a scientific misconduct as virtually every data-set has been cherry picked. In my previous blog, I have shown numerous studies citing low IQ on China. Here are a list of such articles citing low IQ data on China (<100) even in optimum living conditions which as per Richard Lynn's claims do not exist.

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

Hong, 2001 (Average IQ of 65-82)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/hong-2001.pdf
Shandong province, china.

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

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

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

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

Fan, 2007 (Average IQ of 96, 98)
http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/fan-2007.pdf
Pucheng County, Shaanxi Province, China

Li, 2003 (Average IQ of 92)
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p161-164.pdf
Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China

Zhang, 1998 (Average IQ of 80,85,87)
http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/zhang-1998.pdf
Kuitun region, Urumqi, China

Yao, 1997 (Average IQ of 92-100)
http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/yao-1997.pdf
Chaoyang City, Liaoning Province, China

Yao, 1996 (Average IQ of 92-98)
http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/yao-1996.pdf
Chaoyang City, Liaoning Province, China

Duan, 1995 (Average IQ of 71-99)
http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/duan-1995.pdf
Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China

Xu, 1994 (Average IQ of 69-83)
http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/xu-1994.pdf
Shandong Province, China

Sun, 1991 (Average IQ of 69-85)
http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/sun-1991.pdf
Guizhou Province, China

Ren, 1989 (Average IQ of 75-85 appx.)
http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/ren-1989.pdf
Shandong Province, China

Lin, 1991 (Average IQ of 71, 77, 79, 96)
http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/lin-1991.pdf
Hetian prefecture, Xinjiang, China

14 more IQ studies showing low average IQ on China:-

Qian, 2009 (14 IQ studies showing 81-90 average IQ)

http://000do4q.myregisteredwp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1836/2016/05/china-iodine-study.pdf

Overall IQ result:- Iodine sufficient (optimum conditions):-

84.7, 86.9, 87.2, 75.1, 75.1, 88.34, 85.15, 86.9, 88.65, 90.89, 87.56, 87.31, 97.8, 81.44

References:-

“Wang D, Qi SP, Chen ZP. [A report of China Binet Scale applied in clinic trial]. Xin Li Tong Xun (Chinese, ISSN1000-6648) 1986; 41 (3): 39-43.”

“Wang D, Chen ZP, Wang H, Fu HY, Wang HX, Liu DF. [Intelligence problems of "normal" children in iodine deficiency areas]. Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing Xue Za Zhi (Chinese, ISSN1000-4955) 1987; 6 (3): 137-140.”

“Ma XY, Yiu ZS, Chen ZH, Zheng JY, Huang CY, Huang FM, et al. [Study of endemic sub-clinical cretinism in Fujian province]. Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing Xue Za Zhi (Chinese, ISSN1000-4955) 1988;5(7):266-269.”

“Wang YH, Sun HG, Tang MZ, Liu YX, Zhang HY, Xiao KH, et al. [Survey of Intelligence and Physical Development of Children aged 7-14 at Huangshan of
Chaohu, Anhui Province]. An Hui Yi Xue (Chinese) 1990;11(3):6-10.”

“Wang FB, Cao ZM, Yao CX, Ha HX, Ma CY, Mao CT, et al. [Survey of Children's Intelligence Improved in IDD Area after Intervention of Salt Iodization]. Nin Xia Yi Xue Za Zhi (Chinese) 1992;14(3):168-170.”

“Wang D, Chen ZP, Dong L. Influence of Iodine Deficiency on Children's Development of Intelligence And Physique – A Survey Report of Children at Lamasi of Chengde. Tianjin Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao (Chinese) 1984;8(3):4-7.”

“Wang D, Chen ZP, Wang H, Fu HY, Wang HX, Liu DF. [Intelligence problems of "normal" children in iodine deficiency areas]. Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing Xue Za Zhi
(Chinese, ISSN1000-4955) 1987;6(3):137-140.”

“Xie ZH, Yuan JB, Ye SB, Wen GX, Aierkeng, Liang SC, Wen GX, et al. Effect of iodine deficiency on individual's intelligence. Di Fang Bing Tong Xun (Chinese, ISSN1000- 3711) 1991;6(1):76-78.”

“Geng PB, Zhu JX, Xu LZ, Hu CK, et al. [Survey of intelligence development among children aged 7-14 in IDD areas]. Symposium of the Third Chinese Endemic Goiter
and Cretinism (Chinese) 1987.11;66-68.”

“Hunan study group of subcretinism. [Study of Endemic Sub-clinical of Children Aged 7-10 in IDD Area of Xiangxibei]. Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing Fang Zhi Za Zi
(Chinese, ISSN1001-1889) 1987;3(6);170-172.”

“Dong HT, Dang FZ, Tan ZJ, Jia GQ, Xu HF, Liu RH, et al. [Iodine deficiency influence on children mental development in IDD areas]. Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing Xue Za Zhi (Chinese, ISSN1000-4955) 1991;10(1):51-53.”

“Dai HX, Dai JL, Huang ZX, Wang QL, Ma GS, Wu Y. [Sampling survey about 7-14 years old in IDD areas after implementing salt iodization]. Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing
Fang Zhi Za Zhi (Chinese, ISSN1001-1889) 1991;6(Suppl):66-67.”

“Wang Y, Liu ZT, Yu HY, Wang YC, Zheng HM, Zheng S, et al. [A survey of endemic sub-clinical cretinism in Lushan county of Henan Province]. Zhong Guo Di Fang
Bing Fang Zhi Za Zhi (Chinese, ISSN1001-1889) 1991;6(Suppl):11-13.”

“Shu YQ. [Analysis of children intelligence in IDD areas after correction of iodine deficiency]. Symposium of the Third Chinese Endemic Goiter and Cretinism (Chinese) 1987:197-198.”

“Zeng GH. [Prevention effect of salt iodization on mild damage of neural system among children in IDD areas]. Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing Xue Za Zhi (Chinese, ISSN1000- 4955) 1991;10(Suppl: Symposium of the Forth Chinese IDD):129-132.”

“Zuo SM, Zhu CK, Ke JJ, Zhou YF, Sun HQ. [Survey and analysis of intelligence development and bone age among children after iodine implementation 13 years later in IDD areas]. Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing Xue Za Zhi (Chinese, ISSN1000-4955) 1996;15(4):231-233.”

“Zhu CK, Zhang TW, Ke JJ, Ma QL, Zuo SM, Shi ZF. [Edible salt iodization effect on mental development among children in IDD areas]. Di Fang Bing Tong Xun (Chinese, ISSN1000-3711) 1993;8(3):35-38.”

“Shen JZ. [Effect of iodine intervention on intelligence of rural children in iodine deficiency areas]. Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing Fang Zhi Za Zhi (Chinese, ISSN1001-1889) 1991;6(Suppl):19-21.”

“Li JQ, Yan YQ, Zhang ZJ. [Iodine Deficiency Influence on Physical And Psychological Development]. Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing Fang Zhi Za Zhi (Chinese, ISSN1001-1889) 1991;6(Suppl):1-3.”

“Wang H, Shi FK, Li KD, Wang D. [A survey report of intelligence of children born after and before salt iodization IDD areas]. Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing Xue Za Zhi (Chinese, ISSN1000-4955) 1987;6(3);144-146.”

“Fu LX, Zeng QZ, Deng LQ, Chen QF. The effect of prevention of iodised salt on intelligency and physical development in endimic critinism of Changping of Guangdong. Symposium of the Third Chinese Endemic Goiter and Cretinism (Chinese) 1987;153-155.”

“Chen ZP, Liu XL, Lin XY, Wang D, Pei KF, Zou LY, et al. [Evaluation of intelligence of children born after salt iodization intervention in IDD areas]. Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing Xue Za Zhi (Chinese, ISSN1000-4955) 1991;10(Suppl):13-16.”

“He SJ, Yang ZG, Zhang BC, Long SF, Zhou WX. [Comparison analysis of children intelligence among minority of Miao, Dong, Han in Qiandongnan state]. Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing Xue Za Zhi (Chinese, ISSN1000-4955) 1993;12(1):38-40.”

“O'Donnell, K.J., Rakeman, M.A., Dou, Z.H., Cao, X.Y., Zeng, Y.M., DeLong, N., Brenner, G., Ma, T., Wang, Dong., DeLong, G.R.. Effects of Iodine Supplementation druing Pregnancy on Child Growth and Development at School Age. Developmental Medicine Child Neurology 2000; 44:76-81.”

Scientific misconduct in Richard Lynn's work:-

Well as shown in 30 research articles above that average IQ in China is less than 100, and in many many cases less than 85. Even in optimum living conditions.

Note: Any research article where average IQ result is above 100 is omitted from this data-set. Even data-sets where partial results are above 100 is omitted. For eg. A research article showing average IQ of 95,99,102 in 3 different regions is omitted. 

Clearly if there exist as many as 30 research articles out of possibly 90 IQ studies done till date on China. Why is the Western Psychological World led by Richard Lynn ignoring "low IQ data-set ?"

Answer is simple. Racial differences in IQ is a hypothetical construct which is only existing in modern day due to scientific misconduct of "IQ and Wealth of Nations", "IQ and Global Inequality" and Richard Lynn's work. All the data in both the books have been cherry picked and "myths have been propagated in the society" that world population differs on average IQ. Further, claims are made that virtually all IQ samples on China show IQ between 100-110 which is far from the truth. Many and large number of research publications have been hidden while writing both these books which is a clear case of scientific misconduct. It is virtually impossible that anyone who is working as a researcher on "IQ" misses such a large number of research articles showing contrary results. So, most probably Richard Lynn's work is a misconduct and not poorly conducted research.