The Future of China?, Where India left in dust? Options

[richasiankid]

Some rhapsodise just how great India will thrive on multi-religious democracy (unlike Israel or mid east). Others fancy India becoming like HK or S'pore securing itself via English facility against evil Sinic hegemony.

But in the end it's a lesson where everything's sweet & swell India where it doesn't measure up, where it still can't even secure the basics and where human capital matters:

http://www.zshare.net/download/97642747c4df52c8/ (light end of tunnel; patience patience!)

PISA 2009 report for (against?) India?

Cities of India are still at the very very bottom, while cities like Shanghai are wowwing off the charts.

Yet another data point we're different.....

[AnybodyKiller]

And this is - again - on supposedly such an unimportant topic of PISA scores between China and India in the first place.

Question: why are you so bothered by meaningless data in the first place anyway?

Because you misinterpret this data to mean "innate intellect" for the millionth time.

And then use these misinterpretations to perpetuate your agenda (which I have no problem with btw, just this particular method)

It more accurately measures development.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Jan 14 2012, 04:14 AM

[richasiankid]

Because you misinterpret this data to mean "innate intellect" for the millionth time.

And then use these misinterpretations to perpetuate your agenda (which I have no problem with btw, just this particular method)

It more accurately measures development.

Do you at least agree outcome differences can be at least partly innate?

That just because of equal or even surfeit nutrition not everyone will be or can be equally tall, say?

[AnybodyKiller]

Do you at least agree outcome differences can be at least partly innate?

That just because of equal or even surfeit nutrition not everyone will be or can be equally tall, say?

Dude, I've always fu-king said that!

Look back at some of my posts. There's genetic evidence showing certain populations are more likely to have certain types of genes.

For instance certain African populations are more predisposed to genes strongly correlated to long distance running, while these genes are present in all populations (of course) they are much more likely to appear in these specific populations.

I wouldn't be surprised if those of "East Asian" descent are more predisposed to have better innate math talent.

EDIT: But, I have a problem with the way you try to imply not so subtly that this makes them "superior", especially to overlapping Southeast Asian populations.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Jan 14 2012, 09:26 PM

[richasiankid]

Dude, I've always fu-king said that!

Look back at some of my posts. There's genetic evidence showing certain populations are more likely to have certain types of genes.

For instance certain African populations are more predisposed to genes strongly correlated to long distance running, while these genes are present in all populations (of course) they are much more likely to appear in these specific populations.

I wouldn't be surprised if those of "East Asian" descent are more predisposed to have better innate math talent.

EDIT: But, I have a problem with the way you try to imply not so subtly that this makes them "superior", especially to overlapping Southeast Asian populations.

I've always maintained that populations are different - which we agree - but since you seem to be obsessed about superiority and inferiority, let me push this further, can you please tell how the two Indian cities' PISA scores are equal or superior compared to Shanghai and in what dimension? Do PISA scores mean anything (equality) and are lower scores somehow even advantageous downstream.

[AnybodyKiller]

I've always maintained that populations are different - which we agree - but since you seem to be obsessed about superiority and inferiority, let me push this further, can you please tell how the two Indian cities' PISA scores are equal or superior compared to Shanghai and in what dimension? Do PISA scores mean anything (equality) and are lower scores somehow even advantageous downstream. For instance

I'm obsessed? You're the one trying to link these high test scores as the only reason for economic inequality. Even going as far as to say they show the inherent "logistic" superiority of Chinese over Indians. Education is different from Intellect (Of which there are multiple forms)... It's like a Eurocentric claiming Chinese are closer to whites than they are to Koreans (True story btw), and then saying those who dispute his claims are "obsessed" with Koreans.

In any case I never said all conditions the same the tests would be "equal". The tests measure "development of human capital" or "progress of education" more accurately than "innate general intellect". I've said this many times.

Are we at least in agreement that there are other factors that determine these test scores besides innate "talent" and the portion of people in each population that has this "innate talent"?

[richasiankid]

I'm obsessed? You're the one trying to link these high test scores as the only reason for economic inequality. Even going as far as to say they show the inherent "logistic" superiority of Chinese over Indians. Education is different from Intellect (Of which there are multiple forms)... It's like a Eurocentric claiming Chinese are closer to whites than they are to Koreans (True story btw), and then saying those who dispute his claims are "obsessed" with Koreans.

In any case I never said all conditions the same the tests would be "equal". The tests measure "development of human capital" or "progress of education" more accurately than "innate general intellect". I've said this many times.

Are we at least in agreement that there are other factors that determine these test scores besides innate "talent" and the portion of people in each population that has this "innate talent"?

Most certainly; and likewise outcomes are partly innate as I noted before.

Perhaps some would posit that Chinese "culture" is superior to Indian "culture" - given the 2+ standard deviation differences between populations (i.e. not individuals). This is possible. If such is the case, Indians are themselves to blame for not adopting Chinese culture.

And once again, I point out one more time: this is not some hair-splitting dispute - for illustration purposes on a scale of 100 with 1 SD = 15 and if China is 100 India is somewhere between 60-70. Note I did not say IQ, but this scale is chosen just for illustration purposes on the magnitude we're talking about here - and the average Indian in those two cities would score at below the 2nd percentile compared to the Shanghai cohort.

As side point, on this genes vs environment questions, other studies have shown that on individual basis, on the variable of high school GPA (i.e. often viewed as more content dependent than PISA, i.e. more dependent on effort than reasoning, i.e. should have more environmental impact and amenable to hard work), it's still genetic niche picking more than environment niche picking:

Understandably people focus on malleability and nurture (no one wants their own job to become redundant); but nature is not equal and we should be open minded enough to acknowledge that some will have a head start and not all have equal potential.

[AnybodyKiller]

Most certainly; and likewise outcomes are partly innate as I noted before.

Perhaps some would posit that Chinese "culture" is superior to Indian "culture" - given the 2+ standard deviation differences between populations (i.e. not individuals). This is possible. If such is the case, Indians are themselves to blame for not adopting Chinese culture.

And once again, I point out one more time: this is not some hair-splitting dispute - for illustration purposes on a scale of 100 with 1 SD = 15 and if China is 100 India is somewhere between 60-70. Note I did not say IQ, but this scale is chosen just for illustration purposes on the magnitude we're talking about here - and the average Indian in those two cities would score at below the 2nd percentile compared to the Shanghai cohort.

As side point, on this genes vs environment questions, other studies have shown that on individual basis, on the variable of high school GPA (i.e. often viewed as more content dependent than PISA, i.e. more dependent on effort than reasoning, i.e. should have more environmental impact and amenable to hard work), it's still genetic niche picking more than environment niche picking:

Understandably people focus on malleability and nurture (no one wants their own job to become redundant); but nature is not equal and we should be open minded enough to acknowledge that some will have a head start and not all have equal potential.

And like I said many times, I don't doubt that certain populations produce individuals predisposed to be more "talented" in certain areas. Which would cause a "fixed" value in a sample test. This does not mean however these "talents" are non-existent in other populations though. Also it would be near impossible in this day and age to accurately measure "innate logistical talent". Hence the futility of this discussion.

"You cannot measure Biology out of the context of environment" etc.

And even genes once thought hard coded are modified by environment:
"Epigenetic theory is an emergent theory of development that includes both the genetic origins of behavior and the direct influence that environmental forces have, over time, on the expression of those genes."
Actually read about this in the latest Nat Geo about twin studies. Pretty fascinating.

And lets not even get into different genotypes having different optimal environments.

That being said, even though I do believe in the predisposition of certain groups to be talented in certain areas, what you presented is still weak evidence of eliminating environment as a variable.

Just because the conclusion says that environmental factors were not substantive or significant does not make it the case. What makes them believe this? Like I've said before can you post the methods on how they eliminated environment as a variable? Not just the conclusion saying they did.

Also, .4 is not a very high correlation at all in fact it implies a "weak relationship" (aka interpret carefully- basic Stats), just because they attach the word "substantial" to it does not make it so. I would actually expect the correlation to be much higher! On top of that, Intelligence tests and GPA having a "high" correlation doesn't mean they've proved causation to innate intelligence because neither measure innate intelligence in the first place.

Diggin' the big font btw

EDIT:

Here, instead of listening to me and "richasiankid" go on and on about nature vs nurture why don't we look first hand at actual scientists hunting for the intelligence gene and what they have to say about it:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/09/carl-...telligence.html

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Jan 22 2012, 01:22 AM

[richasiankid]

And like I said many times, I don't doubt that certain populations produce individuals predisposed to be more "talented" in certain areas. Which would cause a "fixed" value in a sample test. This does not mean however these "talents" are non-existent in other populations though. Also it would be near impossible in this day and age to accurately measure "innate logistical talent". Hence the futility of this discussion.

"You cannot measure Biology out of the context of environment" etc.

And even genes once thought hard coded are modified by environment:
"Epigenetic theory is an emergent theory of development that includes both the genetic origins of behavior and the direct influence that environmental forces have, over time, on the expression of those genes."
Actually read about this in the latest Nat Geo about twin studies. Pretty fascinating.

And lets not even get into different genotypes having different optimal environments.

That being said, even though I do believe in the predisposition of certain groups to be talented in certain areas, what you presented is still weak evidence of eliminating environment as a variable.

Just because the conclusion says that environmental factors were not substantive or significant does not make it the case. What makes them believe this? Like I've said before can you post the methods on how they eliminated environment as a variable? Not just the conclusion saying they did.

Also, .4 is not a very high correlation at all in fact it implies a "weak relationship" (aka interpret carefully- basic Stats), just because they attach the word "substantial" to it does not make it so. I would actually expect the correlation to be much higher! On top of that, Intelligence tests and GPA having a "high" correlation doesn't mean they've proved causation to innate intelligence because neither measure innate intelligence in the first place.

Diggin' the big font btw

EDIT:

Here, instead of listening to me and "richasiankid" go on and on about nature vs nurture why don't we look first hand at actual scientists hunting for the intelligence gene and what they have to say about it:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/09/carl-...telligence.html

Gee thanks - so tell us, please, how strong is evidence for equality in the first place. Or is it merely based on blind faith when (charitably and I do mean charitably) it gets stronger every time inconvenient facts challenges it. Much like how the Church was challenged by science etc etc.

Afterall you highlighted yourself: "That being said, even though I do believe in the predisposition of certain groups to be talented in certain areas, what you presented is still weak evidence of eliminating environment as a variable." If equality is so true and so obvious, ask them - let's hear all the evidence supporting equality in the first place.

[AnybodyKiller]

Gee thanks - so tell us, please, how strong is evidence for equality in the first place. Or is it merely based on blind faith when (charitably and I do mean charitably) it gets stronger every time inconvenient facts challenges it. Much like how the Church was challenged by science etc etc.

Afterall you highlighted yourself: "That being said, even though I do believe in the predisposition of certain groups to be talented in certain areas, what you presented is still weak evidence of eliminating environment as a variable." If equality is so true and so obvious, ask them - let's hear all the evidence supporting equality in the first place.

I've already addressed this issue more than once. You try and use a social terminology where it's not applicable and also not what I'm trying to say (arguing against points I'm not making and views I don't hold etc- creating your own imaginary "straw man" to attack). When have I even said "equal" when talking about genetics or biology? When people talk about equality they are usually talking about circumstances and opportunity, sociocultural matters etc. Even identical twins aren't biologically "equal" in a strict sense.

How can there be evidence for "equality" of innate intelligence if we can't even measure innate intelligence? Let alone the fact that scientists are discovering intelligence is multifaceted?

Now if you want to talk about sociocultural measures of "equality" we can get into history and I can show that even the most presently destitute peoples have been parts of great civilizations not long ago (in terms of species). Modern genetic evidence suggesting Egyptian rulers being black for example.

How can you claim that you are merely "a messenger of inconvenient facts" when what you are doing is highly deceptive? No sir, you are not a "race realist" quite the opposite, closer to "misinformed bigot". I know there are innate differences and even explore them. The difference is you exaggerate/lie about them to suit your agenda. Yet, somehow I'm the one "in denial" for exposing your falsehoods and inaccuracies. Somehow I'm the backward "Church" and you're progressive "Science"

And in your second post it's just more of the same; Trying to prove these test scores/IQ and monetary success are caused by innate "general" intellect. You have not even come close. Even top scientists in the field aren't capable of accurately making this claim, yet you are somehow? Or your "parents associate, a mid-high level in education government who you had lunch with once"? Sounds legit

[richasiankid]

I've already addressed this issue more than once. You try and use a social terminology where it's not applicable and also not what I'm trying to say (arguing against points I'm not making and views I don't hold etc- creating your own imaginary "straw man" to attack). When have I even said "equal" when talking about genetics or biology? When people talk about equality they are usually talking about circumstances and opportunity, sociocultural matters etc. Even identical twins aren't biologically "equal" in a strict sense.

How can there be evidence for "equality" of innate intelligence if we can't even measure innate intelligence? Let alone the fact that scientists are discovering intelligence is multifaceted?

Now if you want to talk about sociocultural measures of "equality" we can get into history and I can show that even the most presently destitute peoples have been parts of great civilizations not long ago (in terms of species). Modern genetic evidence suggesting Egyptian rulers being black for example.

How can you claim that you are merely "a messenger of inconvenient facts" when what you are doing is highly deceptive? No sir, you are not a "race realist" quite the opposite, closer to "misinformed bigot". I know there are innate differences and even explore them. The difference is you exaggerate/lie about them to suit your agenda. Yet, somehow I'm the one "in denial" for exposing your falsehoods and inaccuracies. Somehow I'm the backward "Church" and you're progressive "Science"

And in your second post it's just more of the same; Trying to prove these test scores/IQ and monetary success are caused by innate "general" intellect. You have not even come close. Even top scientists in the field aren't capable of accurately making this claim, yet you are somehow? Or your "parents associate, a mid-high level in education government who you had lunch with once"? Sounds legit

Name-calling is ad hominem and you know it as well as I do; in any case let's hear reasons of the 2+SD difference between India and China PISA scores if my explicit or implicit reasons (including culture) are ultimately so unsatisfactory to you.