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.