IQ and the Wealth of Nations

IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial 2002 book by Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster Dr. Richard Lynn, Northern Ireland, and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Helsinki, Finland, arguing that differences in national income are largely explained by differences in national intelligence. The book includes the authors' estimates of average IQ scores for each country, based on their analysis of published reports; their argument that national gross domestic product per capita is correlated with IQ, and their conclusion that the IQ differences correlated with income differences by a factor of about 0.7.

In several cases, IQ did not correlate well with GDP. In these cases, the authors argued that differences in GDP were caused by differences in natural resources and whether the nation used a socialist or "market" economy. One example of this was Qatar, whose IQ was estimated by Lynn and Vanhanen to be about 78, yet had a disproportionately high per capita GDP of roughly USD $17,000. The authors explain Qatar's disproportionately high GDP by its high oil resources. The authors argued that the mainland China's per capita GDP of roughly USD $4,500 could be explained by its use of a communist economic system for much of its recent history. The authors also predicted that communist nations who they believe have high IQs, including the PRC, Vietnam, and North Korea, can be expected to gain GDP by moving from centrally-planned to market economic systems.

The authors stated that they believe IQ is due to both genetic and environmental factors. They also stated that low GDP can cause low IQ, just as low IQ can cause low GDP.

The authors argued that it is the ethical responsibility of rich, high-IQ nations to financially assist poor, low-IQ nations, as it is the responsibility of rich citizens to assist the poor.

The book was cited several times in the popular press, notably the British conservative broadsheet The Times. It has been the subject of some debate in academia, with at least one positive review, but a number of reviewers heavily criticised its statistical methods.

National IQ estimates

Central to the book's thesis, and perhaps one of its most controversial parts, is a tabulation of what Lynn and Vanhanen believe to be the average IQs of the world's nations. Rather than do their own IQ studies (a potentially massive project), the authors average and adjust existing studies.

In most cases, the figures were obtained by taking unweighted averages of about 3 studies. The number of subjects in each study were usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred. The exceptions to this were the United States and Japan, for which studies using more than several thousand subjects are available. Studies that were averaged together often used different methods of IQ testing and/or were done decades apart.

They also adjusted the figures relative to the baseline of UK results, which was taken as 100. When the overall population of the sample countries is taken into account, the mean IQ of the world as indicated by these figures is about 90, which is different than the standard calibration, which sets the mean IQ of any total population at 100.

To account for the Flynn effect (an increase in IQ scores over time), the authors usually adjust the results of older studies upward by an arbitrary number of points. Because of the arbitrary adjustments and the fact that only limited data are available for most nations, the figures given should be considered estimates and can reasonably be expected to vary by about 6 or 7 points in either direction.

Several cases merit specific attention. To obtain a figure for South Africa, the authors used a study done on White South African students and averaged it with what they believed to be the IQ of the Black population, resulting in a figure of 72. The figure for Israel was arrived at in a similar manner - by averaging IQ studies done on different ethnic groups in Israel. For the PRC, the authors used a figure of 106 from a study done in Singapore and adjusted it down by an arbitrary 6 points because they believed the average in China's rural areas was probably less than that in Singapore.

For about half of the 185 nations that appear in the book, no studies are available. In those cases, the authors estimated by taking averages of the IQs of surrounding nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia.

It should be noted that there is controversy about whether IQ is a valid measurement of intelligence, especially among third-world populations. See the article at IQ for details, as well as the article Race and intelligence. In particular, note that most individuals in a given country will not have the country's average IQ, and that it is generally agreed that many factors, including environment, culture, demographics, wealth, pollution, and educational opportunities, affect measured IQ.

One common criticism is that many of the countries with the best average scores are those where testing (e.g. American SATs, baccalaureate examinations) is a crucial aspect of the educational process, and that many of these tests (esp. the SATs) have been shown to be very similar to IQ tests. In these nations, because students study extensively for the high-stakes examinations, it is quite possible that IQ scores are higher because people are subjected to frequent examinations for which they prepare extensively. See Flynn effect.

There are many difficulties when one measuring IQ scores across cultures, and in multiple languages. First of all, use of the same set of exams requires translation, with all its attendant difficulties. To adapt to this, many IQ testers rely on both verbal tests, involving word analogies and the like, and non-verbal tests, which involve pictures, diagrams, and conceptual relationships (such as in-out, big-small, and so on). Roughly the same results tend to be gained with either approach.

Country IQ estimate
Hong Kong 107
South Korea 106
Japan 105
Taiwan (ROC) 104
Singapore 104
Austria 102
Germany 102
Italy 102
Netherlands 102
Sweden 101
Switzerland 101
Belgium 100
China (PRC) 100
New Zealand 100
U.K 100
Hungary 99
Poland 99
Australia 98
Denmark 98
France 98
Norway 98
United States 98
Canada 97
Czech Republic 97
Finland 97
Spain 97
Argentina 96
Russia 96
Slovakia 96
Uruguay 96
Portugal 95
Slovenia 95
Israel 94
Romania 94
Bulgaria 93
Ireland 93
Greece 92
Malaysia 92
Thailand 91
Croatia 90

Country IQ estimate
Peru 90
Turkey 90
Colombia 89
Indonesia 89
Suriname 89
Brazil 87
Iraq 87
Mexico 87
Samoa 87
Tonga 87
Lebanon 86
Philippines 86
Cuba 85
Morocco 85
Fiji 84
Iran 84
Marshall Islands 84
Puerto Rico 84
Egypt 83
India 81
Ecuador 80
Guatemala 79
Barbados 78
Nepal 78
Qatar 78
Zambia 77
Congo-Brazzaville 73
Uganda 73
Jamaica 72
Kenya 72
South Africa 72
Sudan 72
Tanzania 72
Ghana 71
Nigeria 67
Zimbabwe 66
Congo-Kinshasa 65
Sierra Leone 64
Ethiopia 63
Guinea 59

U.S. states

Some sources, such as The Economist, 15th-21st May 2004 (p.44 in the UK edition), have reported a list of average IQ's of U.S. states, supposedly from IQ and the Wealth of Nations. In fact, as The Economist later admitted, such data do not appear in the book. It is not known whether the purported list of state-by-state IQ's is based on other research or is pure invention.

References

IQ and the Wealth of Nations Richard Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen Praeger, ISBN 027597510X