Sub saharan africa iq Continue For other purposes, see Nations and Intelligence. IR and global IR inequality and global inequality coverAuthorRichard LynnTatu VanhanenLanguageEnglishGenerMan human intelligence, Political Science, Sociology, EconomicsPublisherWashington Summit Publishing Date 10 November 2006Media TypePrint (hardcover)Pages442ISBN1-59368-025- 2OCLC261200394 I q and global inequality is the 2006 book by psychologist Richard Lynn and political scientist Tatu Vanhanen. IR and Global Inequality are a continuation of their 2002 book Out and Wealth of Nations, which is a continuation of the argument that international differences in current economic development are partly due to differences in national intelligence, as evidenced by national intelligence assessments, and by a response to critics. The book was published by Washington Summit Publishers, a white nationalist publisher. Lynn and Vanhanen's research on national I-addresses drew widespread criticism of the book's scores, methodology and conclusions. Summary of intelligence and global inequality Lynn and Vanhanen argue that intelligence, measured by intelligence tests, is a major factor in national wealth as well as various indicators of social well-being. They base this argument on the conclusion that the average I-year rate in countries is strongly correlated with several such factors, including adult literacy (0.64), higher education (0.75), life expectancy (0.77) and democratization (0.57). The book is a follow-up to Lynn and Vanhanen's 2002 book From and Wealth of Nations and expands many of the ideas presented in their previous book. IR and global inequality responds to some criticisms directed against the previous book. In order to remove criticism that national intelligence indicators are unreliable, for 71 countries they measure national intelligence ratios by two different methods and believe that the correlation between different indicators of national intelligence is 0.95. As another argument for reliability, they believe that their national I-class coefficients correlate with different performance indicators in mathematics and science, with correlations varying from 0.79 to 0.89. Finally, the book presents the authors' theory on the reason for the national I-versions. They propose a model of interaction of a genetic and ecological environment, in which a high intelligence ratio leads to better nutrition, education and health care, further increase in the level of intelligence. They also suggest that the racial composition of countries should be an important factor in national AI. They base this conclusion on the observation that national AI can generally be predicted based on the racial composition of countries and that national AI countries are similar to usually unite. The National Intelligence And HK scores national intelligence scores, according to Lynn and Vanhanen, in their book IR and Global Inequality. Legend: N.A. ≤65 qgt;65 qgt;75 qgt;85 qgt;85 qgt'90 qgt'95 qgt'100 qgt;105 National KK (human quality) scores scores Lynn and Vanhanen in their book Me and Global Inequality. Legend: 11 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 89 Lynn and Vanhanen base their analysis on separate data from studies that spanned 113 countries. For another 79 countries, they rated the average I-th based on the arithmetic of the measured I-th from neighboring countries. They justify this assessment method by claiming that the correlation between the estimated national IR they reported to the IR and the wealth of nations and the measured national intelligence ratio since receiving is very high (0.91). Lynn and Vanhanen calculated the national I-th relative to the British average of 100, with a standard deviation of 15. They adjusted all test results to reflect the Flynn effect: adjustments were 2 points per decade for The Raven Matrix Progressives and 3 points per decade for all other types of tests. Using two studies on intellectual intelligence in one country, their average was calculated, while three or more studies used median. Academic reviews of the book generally criticized both its methodology and its conclusions. The research methods were criticized by Richard E. Nisbett for relying on small and random samples and for ignoring data that did not support the findings. University of Reading geographer Stephen Morse also criticised the book (as well as the intelligence and wealth of nations), arguing that the authors' hypothesis relied on serious flaws. Morse also argued that the central dilemma of the Lynn and Vanhanen case lies in their assumption that national intelligence data in the first place (not entirely) are a function of innate ability, which in turn is at least partially generated by genes. There are many assumptions about the causes, and some of them are related to significant leaps of faith. Psychologist J. Philippe Rushton, president of the Pioneer Foundation, which has long funded Lynn's research, reviewed the book For Personality and Individual Differences in 2006. Rushton wrote that the book expands and responds to criticism of previous work in several ways, and believes the methods were accurate. Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa said in 2008 that he had found support for Lynn's theories. Kanazawa's study was criticized for using the Pythagoras theorem to estimate geographic distance, despite the fact that this theorem only applies to flat surfaces and the Earth's surface is roughly spherical. Other problems identified in this study include that Kanazawa mistakenly assumed that humans migrated from Africa to other continents migrated as crow flies, and ignored that geographic distance and evolutionary novelty did not always correspond to each other. In an article published in the European personality, Heiner Rindermann compared intelligence scores from from book for a large number of international studies evaluating students in subjects such as reading, math, science, and problem solving, and found them largely interconnected. Statistical analysis has shown that the results can be explained by basic overall cognitive ability. In the same issue of the magazine, more than 30 comments were published on Rindermann's findings. In a 2008 study published in the journal Intelligence, Harry Gelade reported a strong link between national intelligence assessments of the book and the country's geographic location. On this basis, he concluded that the book's conclusions were justified. In a 2010 article, A Systematic Literary Review of the Average Intelligence of Sub-Saharan Africans, also published in the journal Intelligence, Jelte M. Wicherts and colleagues stated: For example, Lynn and Vanhanen (2006) provided Nigeria with a national intelligence ratio of 69 euros based on three samples (Fahrmeier, 1975; Ferron, 1965; Wober, 1969), but they did not take into account other relevant published studies that showed that the average intelligence ratio in Nigeria is significantly higher than 70 (Maqsud, 1980a, b; Nenti and Dinero, 1981; Okunrothif, 1976). As Lynn rightly noted at the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR) conference in 2006, the literature review involves making many choices. However, an important drawback of Lynn (and Vanhanen's) reviews of literature is that they are unsystematic. Lynn and Gerhard Meisenberg responded that critical evaluation of the studies presented by WDM shows that many of them are based on unrepresentative elite samples and that a further review of the literature, including based on results in mathematics, science and reading, gave intelligence ratio 68 as the best reading of intelligence in sub-Saharan Africa. In another response, Vicherts and his colleagues stated: In light of all the intelligence data available, more than 37,000 African test tuckers alone, using non-systemic methods to exclude the vast majority of data can lead to an average intelligence ratio close to 70. Based on sound methods, the average intelligence ratio remains close to 80. While this means that the intelligence ratio is clearly below 100, we see it as unsurprising in light of the potential of the Flynn effect in Africa (Wicherts, Borsboom, and Dolan, 2010) and the general psychometric problems associated with the use of Western intelligence tests among Africans. Thus, some more recent studies using average national intelligence data tested their results on both data sets. Economists Jones and Schneider, commenting on economic studies, stated that the books properly summarized the findings of the previous volume. Earl Hunt led the work of Lynn and as an example of how scientists go far beyond empirical support to make conflicting policy recommendations, and as such examples of the irresponsible use of science. Hunt claims that in The reasoning they both made the main mistake of assigning a cause-and-effect relationship to correlation without evidence, and that they made staggeringly low estimates of sub-Saharan Africa I, based on highly problematic data. He believes that lynn and Vanhanen's negligence in adulsing good scientific practice does not have the primary responsibility of scientists to ensure that their results can function as reasonable empirical support for political decisions. Cm. also Theories of Race and Intelligence Evolution of Human Intelligence Cattell Cultural Fair III Intelligence and Public Policy Racism Publishing Race and Intelligence IR and Wealth of Nations Mismeasure Human Racial Differences in Intelligence Bell Crooked Links - Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen (2006). IR and global inequality. Washington Summit Publishers: Augusta, GA. ISBN 1-59368-025-2 - Lynn, R. and Vanhanen, T. (2002). The intelligence and wealth of nations. Westport, CT: Prager. ISBN 0-275-97510-X - b c d Rushton, J. Philippe (2006). Review. Personality and individual differences. 41 (5): 983–5. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.05.007. b c Viherts, J.M.; et al. (2009). A systematic review of the literature of the average intelligence of sub-Saharan Africans. Intelligence. 38: 1–20. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2009.05.002. a b McDaniel, M.A. (2008). Book Review: Intelligence and Global Inequality. Intelligence. 36 (6): 731–732. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.003.