[QUOTE=brazil84]
It depends on how you define “extremely.” I’ve been to poor areas in the United States.[’/quote]
Then you’ve never been to a place that is extremely poor.
That fact that you are overlooking is that it doesn’t stand alone. Your points have been repeatedly refuted. That of course never stops you from continuing to argue them, based on almost complete ignorance of the subject at hand.
Fine. That’s why I asked.
Who refuted the point I made in Post #130 and where?
Here’s your point in post 130:
Not to be too blunt here, but you have not demonstrated a firm grasp of what it is like to run a country. Nigeria has a workforce of 57 million, the largest agriculture sector in Africa (19th largest in the world), the 3rd largest manufacturing sector in Africa (44th in the world), has significant banking, transportation, and services sectors.
It’s the most populous country on the continent. It’s not run by a thin crop of barely sufficient managers and a workforce consisting of mentally retarded. All you have to do is visit there to prove that your assumptions are completely and utterly incorrect. Just ask anyone who has done so. I repeat for the last time, your proposition is demonstrably false. Pick another and move on.
Maybe I haven’t, but so what? The argument I was responding to was that it would be impossible for a country with an average IQ of 70 to have a functioning airport and other limited infrastructure.
I showed that it was possible. My argument has not been rebutted.
If I run into somebody who tells me that in his experience, blacks are a lot less intelligent than whites, should I believe them? And if not, why should I believe somebody who tells me that in his experience Nigerians are just as intelligent as Westerners?
The ports and airport issue was simply a “f’r instance” thrown into the discussion. I suppose we have failed to persuade you on that point. You have not really shown that the port situation is possible; you merely posited that it might be possible to scrape together enough bodies to carry out the port tasks if we ignored the fact that those people would be swallowed up by the need to do very basic things to survive if half of their fellow citizens were unable to bear their share of the burden of maintaining a country. However, the matter began before the “f’r instance” and continued after that point regarding the ability of an entire nation to survive with half of its population below the level of mental retardation and some substantial number below what is regarded as “average” in the U.S. If you really believe that such a thing is possible, I suspect that there will be no persuading you, but it really is not a tenable position.
Because millions upon millions of westerners have visited Nigeria and none of them have reported anything different. Because 100’s of thousands of Nigerians have visited the West and no one has reported anything different. Because anyone who has spent significant time with people whose IQs were 70 or below would tell you that the scenario you describe is ludicrous. Because it would be immediately apparent to the most casual observer.
You’re not arguing that there might be slight differences in intelligence; that’s something that is possible (but not demonstrated). You’ve just moved the goalposts. Your contention was that an average IQ of 70 of Nigeria was possible. Several people have shown that is simply not true.
I don’t think there’s much else we can do to convince you at this point.
You need to give me specifics. It seems pretty clear to me that a country with an average IQ of 70 could maintain limited and spotty infrastructure, especially if it made use of foreign contractors.
Which is what seems to be the situation in Nigeria right now.
But let me ask you this: Do you think that, all things being equal, a nation with a national average IQ of 70 is likely to have a much lower GDP than a nation with a national average IQ of 100?
Cite?
Most Americans don’t even speak the same language as most Nigerians. According to Wikipedia, English “remains an exclusive preserve of a small minority of the country’s urban elite, and is not spoken in rural areas.”
So I don’t see how a typical American could visit Nigeria, interact with the locals, and get an accurate sense of how intelligent Nigerians are.
But let me ask you the same question that I asked tomndebb: Do you think that a country with an average IQ of 70, all things being equal, would have a GDP that is a lot lower than a country of average IQ 100?
A country with an average IQ of 70, all other things being equal, would not be able to function as a state and would not have a functioning economy, so yes, it would have a GDP that is a lot lower than a country of average IQ 100.
And would you think that there is some average IQ for a nation that’s between 70 and 100 where the economy will function somewhat, but still not all that well?
Or do you think there is some threshold where if the national average IQ is below that threshold, the economy won’t function at all, and above that threshold it will function just fine?
I’d imagine the former. As you lower the average IQ for a nation from our baseline of 100, you’re increasing the percentage of the population that can’t function in society without help. THat obviously puts strains on the society and the econonmy, because, in effect, you’re taking people out of the labor pool.
How is it clear to you that, if a nation has 50% of its population who lacks the intelligence to take basic actions to feed themselves, it would actually not descend into utter chaos?
“All things being equal,” a nation with an average IQ of 70 would clearly not have as good a GDP as a nation averaging 100, because a nation with an average IQ of 70 would be in utter ruin with no GDP, at all. (What in the world would be “equal” in that situation, I am not sure.)
Let us also not forget that these african women are also prime victims for rape when they go into the woods to gather. And I believe all the soot from traditonal fires aren’t doing their own or childrens health any good.
You need to be more specific what you mean by “utter chaos.” Many parts of the world are pretty chaotic.
But anyway, I think that a person who is mildly retarded (IQ 50 to 75) can probably take basic actions to feed himself or herself. Though he or she may do a lousy job of it.
And would you think that there is some average IQ for a nation that’s between 70 and 100 where the economy will function somewhat, but still not all that well?
Or do you think there is some threshold where if the national average IQ is below that threshold, the economy won’t function at all, and above that threshold it will function just fine?
Just as an aside, I feel perfectly at ease in ignoring Lynn and Vanhanen’s “research” simply on the grounds that Lynn is a one-time grantee, now Director, with the Pioneer Fund. Nice group, that one. If only those less intelligent people in the various African countries could all die off, they’d tell you the world would be a better place for all (I’m guessing that at least some small number of Africans might not find extinction to be better for them, but I don’t think their opinions are being considered).
ETA: Menem Yellum, while we have rules against attacking other posters, you are allowed to attack their arguments quite strongly. For instance, you can say that a poster’s arguments are the stupidest, most hate-filled rhetoric you’ve seen this week. You just can’t call the person stupid.
Pardon me, but Southeast Asia here chiming in. The countries you name are NOT in Southeast Asia, and NO ONE over here would consider them to be. I’ve even heard South and North Korea referred to as Northeast Asia, but in general, they are all considered East Asia. The only country that could be considered developed in SE Asia is Singapore.
I do not know any person who has been tested at a level below 70 who could survive without substantial support from society. Even the street people I’ve known who were mentally deficient had access to dumpsters from which they could scavenge food. And they make up a much smaller percentage of the population, (meaning that they can rely on the discards of a much larger population), and can avail themselves of soup kitchens from time to time. Change that scenario to one in which the majority of people are depending on a much smaller population to provide trash to be eaten, (something I do not recall even being discussed in reports from Nigeria), and I think that the notion that they could survive is a fantasy.
I would not even speculate on this stuff. While I recognize that IQ tests can provide a very rough gauge of mental capacity for individuals in North America, I am completely skeptical of aggregate IQ scores applied to populations and have no belief in the reliability of IQ tests that have been transported across cultural boundaries.
In this conversation I have noted the complete incapacity of individuals assigned that score in the U.S. to survive without support. I have then noted that a nation in which half the population is as incapable of survival as those individuals I have known could not function (regardless what arbitrary score was assigned to the people of that nation). I then note that there are several nations in the Lynn and Vanhanen book to which they assign numbers lower than the range which I find incapable of survival as averages for whole nations. To that silliness, I respond that they are obviously wrong.
I feel no compulsion to bandy about arbitrary numbers on flawed tests for the purpose of speculating where some imaginary “break point” might appear. A test that might roughly show the capacity of an individual when the score is sufficiently extreme is not something I am going to attempt to wield as a finely calibrated machine to gauge whole populations.
I can’t believe you all are debating this as though it was a reasonable proposition that African’s IQ’s average at 70. It isn’t. It’s racist nonsense, and it demeans this forum to keep this thread open. It should be closed or moved to the pit.
IQs are nonsense anyway.
The links I gave indicate that people who are “mildly retarded” (IQ 50 to 70) can often live independently. Why should I accept your general impression? What if somebody came into this thread and said “I have a lot of time with black people and based on my experiences, they are definitely a lot less intelligent than whites and Asians”? How much weight should that be given?
In that case, it’s a little inconsistent for you to claim that a non-Western country with an average IQ of 70 could not function as a country.