I’ve spent significant time with a few people who seemed to me to be mildly retarded, including 1 family member. However, I don’t know their IQ scores.
I did a google search on “mental retardation.” The first hit was from an organization called “National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities.”
It had the following to say:
The 3 retarded people I have known were all able to hold down jobs and live independently (not without problems though).
So I would suggest that you aren’t giving enough credit to people who are mildly retarded. I would guess that most of them are capable of taking care of themselves, although they may do a lousy job.
And I would suggest that you aren’t giving enough weight to the difficulty that a society where the average IQ was 70 would have in functioning at the most basic of levels. Remember, 70 is the average. For every person with an IQ of 100 there’s someone with an IQ of 40. And all the people that person can rely on has an IQ of 70 since all those with the 100 IQs are running the airports, transportation systems, fixing the cars, running the administration of the country, etc.
The situations are not comprable: a few people with mild retardation operating in an environment with lots of able bodied help and an average IQ of 100 vs a country where fully 50% of the population is unable to function with significant supervision. They can only take care of themselves in our culture because they are a rarity in an otherwise fully functional society.
I have spent a substantial amount of time in Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa, as well as other African countries such as Cameroon, Congo-Kinshasha, and Gabon, whose average IQs would not be expected to be any higher. The premise that the average person in these societies is functioning at the equivalent of an IQ of 70 is simply ludicrous. I certainly have never had the impression that the average person in these societies is any stupider than the average American, though they may be naive in certain respects due to lack of education. The idea that the measured IQ reflects the real intelligence in these societies is absurd.
I’ll tell you also that in duel of wits between an “average” Nigerian and most of the participants in this thread, including myself, my money would most definitely be on the Nigerian.
Right, but in the example you gave, that’s due to a folk belief in Nigeria of “spirit children”…spirits who take the form of sick infants and children, and who only “live” a short time. So, sick infants who are identified as “spirit children” argen’t given the kind of medical help that other sick infants are, because it’s believed they’re fated to die anyway.
That’s a religious belief, and not one directly associated with intelligence. It’s a little bit like saying that Christian Scientist families in America have a higher infant mortality rate than non-Christian Scientist families. It’s not because Christian Scientists are stupid or mentally retarded or anything like that. It’s because they have a specific belief system that discourages them from getting conventional medical treatment for their ill children.
According to the normal distribution tables, over 90% of Nigeria’s population has an IQ over 50. So most of the people are, at worst, mildly retarded by American standards.
According to this article – http://www.lycos.com/info/mental-retardation.html – a mildly retarded person has a mental age of 8.5 to 11 years of age. Could an average American 10 year old with an adult body do a lousy job of taking care of him or herself? Probably.
But anyway, did you see the part in the article where it talks about dirty feeding bottles and utensils? It’s hard to chalk that up to religious beliefs.
While there is some value in these sorts of personal observations, it’s hard to put a lot of stock in them. What if somebody came into this thread and said “Gosh, I spend a lot of time with black people and they seem really stupid to me.”? It’s an interesting observation, but it should be quantified and studied in an objective way before anyone takes it seriously.
What’s to stop you from boiling some water? Even if you don’t have a stove, you could light a fire. Or possibly score some chlorine bleach from a relief worker.
You really don’t have a clue as to what life is like in the Third World, do you? Have you ever had to haul water by hand over any distance? Firewood also often has to be toted from literally miles away. And I’m sure there are relief workers all over the place just strolling around doling out chlorine.
I wouldn’t say that I’m clueless, but I admit there may be a lot that I don’t know.
So Nigerian villagers don’t have fires? How often do they cook?
Anyway, my main point in raising the high child mortality of Nigeria is that it is consistent with a population that has a low average IQ. It may be consistent with other things too, however.
Sure, they have fires and they cook. My point is that when you have to haul both your water and your firewood from some distance, it may not be feasible to boil all your washing-up water long enough to sterilize it. Many women in the Third World already spend much of their day hauling enough water and firewood just for basic cooking and other needs; getting enough to boil your wash water may simply be impossible.
The fact that child mortality was much greater in the US in the 1700s, and more similar to that in Nigeria today, is consistent with Americans being a lot stupider back then, but few people would draw that conclusion.
OK, what are you arguing, because you haven’t been very clear. You seem to be claiming that there is some evidence that the population of Nigeria could have an average IQ of 70. Several people have stated in no uncertain terms that what you propose is simply not possible, based on experience with the mentally retarded, and experience in Nigeria. You keep dancing around the issue without supporting your argument, if that is in fact your argument.
Other people are arguing that it’s impossible for Nigeria to have an average IQ of 70 because (1) the country functions well enough to have working infrastructure; and (2) the general population is able to take care of itself well enough to avoid starving to death en masse.
I am arguing that (1) it’s possible for a country where the population has an average IQ of 70 to accomplish these things, although they might not be accomplished very well; and (2) indeed, there is evidence that these things are not being accomplished very well in Nigeria.
And what you seem to be ignoring is that people are refuting both of your points. It is simply not possible for a society with an average IQ of 70 to function on any level that would be recognized as a country. Nigeria, while poor and having many problems, is leaps and bounds above the utter chaos that you’d expect.
And things aren’t being accomplished very well in Nigeria because of all sorts of reasons, none of which have anything to do with intelligence. If you are trying to make that connection, you have to explain why when the US or Europe was like that (and we were by many objective measures) there was no clear drop or subsequent rise in intelligence.
Have you ever been to someplace that is extremely poor? There are all sorts of problems, and people haven’t had much if any formal education. But it is clear to any causal observer that the average intelligence of the population is little different then what you see in the industrialized West. Your premise is easily refuted by direct observation.
What specifically would that society be unable to do?
It depends on how you define “extremely.” I’ve been to poor areas in the United States.
As I said before, direct observation is interesting, but it’s hard to put a lot of stock in this sort of observation.
What if somebody came into this thread and said “Gosh, I spend a lot of time with black people and they seem really stupid to me.”? It’s an interesting observation, but standing alone, it’s hard to take it very seriously.
