Chinese Secret Weapons that NOT on show at the Nationay Say Parade

[inferno]

Originally Posted by graphican

According to a wikipedia, China has the highest IQ levels in the world.. so you can expect them to build weapons beyond your comprehension. Its just a matter of time.

as for pakistanis considerence. You donot consider wikipedia as credible source.So i deny it as it is not a credible source.

[paritosh]

Originally Posted by graphican

According to a wikipedia, China has the highest IQ levels in the world.. so you can expect them to build weapons beyond your comprehension. Its just a matter of time.

do you truly believe that Graphican?did all the intelligent people decide to live in china?
you can't confine genius to countries...

[Honor]

There's a IQ test that shows generally Chinese, Japanese, Korean had the highest mean IQ in the world! It may not be 100% correct but several tests conclude that

Several factors affect IQ: Cultural, race, environment

[booo]

Originally Posted by Speeder

1. Anti-Air Type 99K Tank



[IMG][/IMG]

tank on viagra

[kungpaochicken]

This post provide the exact evidence for the western media to make their case of Chinese threat

[umairp]

Originally Posted by Speeder

5. Next generation Chinese AWAC KJ-4000!




[IMG][/IMG]

Pic of the year!

[paritosh]

Originally Posted by Honor

There's a IQ test that shows generally Chinese, Japanese, Korean had the highest mean IQ in the world! It may not be 100% correct but several tests conclude that

Several factors affect IQ: Cultural, race, environment

culture..partly,environment...totally, but not at all race.
do you know that IQ tests are one of the most controversial topics among psychologists to judge man's intelligence?
All I know is that we are born with a brain that weighs almost the same i.e 1.3 kg...Intelligence comes from how efficiently your brain is wired by the neurons and the free flow of synaptic signals...which is not determined by your race but through your environment and upbringing and one's own experiences.
I hope you give me a counter-argument.

[Speeder]

Originally Posted by paritosh

culture..partly,environment...totally, but not at all race.
do you know that IQ tests are one of the most controversial topics among psychologists to judge man's intelligence?
All I know is that we are born with a brain that weighs almost the same i.e 1.3 kg...Intelligence comes from how efficiently your brain is wired by the neurons and the free flow of synaptic signals...which is not determined by your race but through your environment and upbringing and one's own experiences.
I hope you give me a counter-argument.

Despite of some imperfections of IQ test, the very fact that there is a clear difference amongst scores of different racial groups shows that hierarchy does exist, albeit the importance here not being the order of hierarchy.

Talking about racial difference doesn't neccesarily make one a racist.

The simplest counter-argument to yours is that Blacks who inhabit in Europe for generations with arguablely the similar cultural upbringing and environment, if not totally the same, as native Whites, exbite inferior IQ scores on average consistantly in almost all academic statistics research available. The same goes to other multiracial sociaties such as North America.

So if there isn't race factor in it, what is?

Yes, we all have 2 legs and 2 arms. But if the fact blacks have stronger body muscles on average than East Asians is not also due to race, what is? Due to environemtal and cultural factors?

The same goes with brains. 1.3 kg brains look like the same, yet we all know DNA (intelligence) is heritable, without doubt! And sciences show that Mongoloids have largest brain to mass ratio, with blacks being the least and Whites in between.


Hence it's entirely logical and highly plausible to assume that although we are all human beings, the very factors of different environment and cultural upbringings that have affected us for tens of millions of years (if not more) have already changed some fundamental DNA structures of different racial sub groups, on how to wire our neurons fundamentally, even though our current science is not advanced enough to identify which DNAs responsible for which yet.

Here comes the race. Admitting it is the right attitude for sciences; denying it is the right attitude for Political Correctness.

[boxer_B]

Dont know whether chinese have high IQ or not but i was laughing my @ss off on australians.

[Black Blood]

Funny as , really bad Photoshop work!!!

[oceanx]

Originally Posted by Speeder

Despite of some imperfections of IQ test, the very fact that there is a clear difference amongst scores of different racial groups shows that hierarchy does exist, albeit the importance here not being the order of hierarchy.

...

Here comes the race. Admitting it is the right attitude for sciences; denying it is the right attitude for Political Correctness.

The point you raised per se is well taken.

However, I am simply not aware of any large scale, representative IQ testings undertaken across large strata of mainland Chinese population - or South Asian population for that matter. If you know of concrete evidence to the contrary, I'd appreciate you pointing out the source for the benefit of my knowledge.

I think we can agree that the average IQ of NA Orientals is no more representative of all Chinese in the PRC than the IQs of Seyyeds represent those of Muslims, or the Brahmans' represent the "Indics".

One can't even entirely credibly argue that Japanese average IQ is representative of East Asian IQs any more than the Finnish average represents those of the European Caucasians.

Looming far larger and more pertinent is the point of view, implicitly raised by paritosh, that questioned the relevance of IQ testing in approximating intelligence.

Blacks are "inherently" more muscular - okay, many can buy that. But are they necessarily more athletic? Only if one accepts that muscle-strength dependent activities are the best representation of "athleticism".

If you do not implicitly accept that activities such as sharp-shooting, those that involve swimming, riding, or otherwise high degrees of hand-eye coordination or bodily flexibility are "second-tier", then you'd be on solid ground to challenge the view that Blacks are more "athletic".

The point implied by paritosh is that racial/ethnic difference in intelligence is less objectively captured by IQ testing than, say, difference in muscular strength is captured by myometry.

A 10-point difference on IQ score may represent a difference in "attitude" toward testing-taking and a willingness to concentrate on a (sit-down) task far more than a divergence in genuine "smartness" - however "wishy-washy" the latter concept may be.

East Asians may well have an edge on the above partially heritable character traits, given the right environment. This "advantage", in my dictionary, falls under the broader category of "emotional intelligence". And this whole concept of EQ/EI is apparently far more predictive of "worldly successes" (in a petit bougeoir sense) than IQ could ever hope to be.

In the same token, practically every spelling-bee in NA is a neuro-surgeon wannabe South Asian kid. They are neither aspiring - nor do I, as a neutral observer, believe these kids have what it takes - to be the next Tagore (泰戈尔). And who here believes Tagore would have been a spelling bee?

We can also discuss the areas of EQ/EI where Orientals may be apparently deficient - but this is hardly the time and place.

[Developereo]

Simple brain size is no indicator of intelligence or success.

Neanderthals had larger brains on average than Cro Magnons, and look who won!

[Honor]

"Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks"

The above information is from lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association

I believe Indian falls between Whites and Blacks

[Speeder]

Originally Posted by oceanx

The point you raised per se is well taken.

However, I am simply not aware of any large scale, representative IQ testings undertaken across large strata of mainland Chinese population - or South Asian population for that matter. If you know of concrete evidence to the contrary, I'd appreciate you pointing out the source for the benefit of my knowledge.

...

We can also discuss the areas of EQ/EI where Orientals may be apparently deficient - but this is hardly the time and place.

I am sorry that I don't share most of your observations. Your opinion on IQ remains as such, as a personal opinion thus far, nothing more than that.



Regarding to IQ field, you can google or wiki up Prof. Richard Lynn, one of the leading researchers of our time on IQ, and his well-known work "IQ and the Wealth of Nations". Yes, this research naturally has its own limitations as all others. Nonetheless, it is by far one of the most peer quoted and respected paper in the IQ field.

If IQ tests have nothing to do ( "irrelevant" in your words )with one's IQ level, as you and Paritosh doubt, then so called "EQ/EI" shall bear no relevance whatsoever with IQ either, due to their much much more dubious and non-objective judgement criteria deployed, e.g. to what extent one can measure that a drawing of one EQ.EI test participant is more imaginative than another and deserves how much higher score? On the contrary however, in known knowledge, there is no great natural scientist having low IQ test scores ( an Einstein < 100 IQ? ).

Therefore, make no mistake, at least we can safely conclude that despite of imperfections of IQ test, it is by far the most advanced scientific tool we humans can come up with, to objectively judge one's intellectual capability in general. In other words, it is at least positively correlated with one's true intellectual potential.



As for "EQ/EI", I personally deem them as some idiotic concepts mainly invented/used by those politically correct liberals and some social science experts wannabes (not out of well known and respectful natural science scientists) to underscore the importance of IQ, in order to suit their political statement that "we are all the same".



Your various doubts above on the IQ indeed are relating to suspicion of measurement techniques involved, in this case, Statistics.

One thing I can assure you that Statistics don't lie. And sophistication of Statistics in today's science world is several orders of multitudes higher than basic Stats applied to IQ test, ranging from selection of geographic area coverage, selection of random participants, score analysis (distribution patterns, standard deviations, fat tails analysis, etc.), degree of error estimation, degree of significance and freedom, and general weight of other factors such as socio-economic development stage, etc. Hence all your technical questions here have been well taken care of scientifically.

Otherwise, the likes such as Prof Richard Lynn, Prof James Watson (Nobel Prize-winning biologist for his discovering of DNA structure) and many more world-class scientists in this and other closely related fields would be "shot dead" long ago by those PC liberals.

[oceanx]

Originally Posted by Speeder

If IQ tests have nothing to do ( "irrelevant" in your words )with one's IQ [sic] level, as you and Paritosh doubt ...

You probably meant "with one's intelligence level" - which would still be putting words in my mouth. I would not say IQ testing is "irrelavant". Simply as Paritosh, I question its pre-eminence as the most "useful approximation" of the broader concept of human intelligence.

I don't question that it may be the most researched, the most "practical", or the most reproducible in an academic environment ...

I also have not read the books that you brought up. I will readily concede that judging by the text that you put forth, it is quite likely that you have far more personal/professional knowledge of the field of intelligence quotient testing itself than I am.

But there is a risk of "missing the forest for the tree".

I also accept the broader thrust of your critique on this "EQ/EI" phenomenon.

However, nothing you put forth has convinced me to revise my basic contentions (as much as they are personal-opinion based), particularly in the absence of any evidence of credible, large scale IQ testings across the general population in China, or India.

Therefore I agree with some of your points, but remain at odds with those that I articulated above.