I totally agree with the IQ dominance of China (and much of Asia) over the West, with the west having its own issues. Here in UK we can see the superiority of Indian Asians on a daily basis - and not just with the prime minister.
Not so sure about the maths though. IQ is distributed on a Normal Curve (Gaussian curve) not logarithmically. In a sense there is a logarithmic curve involved though this is e^(-x-squared /2), so more complex than simply logarithmic.
Standard deviation is generally assumed to be 15 so with a Chinese mean of 105 that implies 0.0123% of the pop with IQ over 160 or about 177k.
But still with a lower mean of 100 the west would have about a quarter of that rate of >160 genii and a smaller population. I suspect too that 105 is possibly low for China and 100 high for the west. While there may still be some brain drain effect importing the best asians into the west I agree that a 10: ratio China to the west sounds roughly correct.
And your selection by talent point is very accurate.
And then more technically. IQ is normally distributed by design rather than nature. That is the scoring does not so measure IQ but orders all the respondents in rank order and then applies a normal curve on them to get a convenient measure which is called IQ. Yes many natural things (like height) do turn out to have a normal distribution. But there is no actual intelligence measure. Even if there was we have no idea if it would correlate linearly to IQ. Essentially any judgements about IQ of those over 130 are guesses, there is simply not a lot of data about.
None of that though challenges your point that the people running China are smarter than those in the west and selected to be smarter.
IQ.
I totally agree with the IQ dominance of China (and much of Asia) over the West, with the west having its own issues. Here in UK we can see the superiority of Indian Asians on a daily basis - and not just with the prime minister.
Not so sure about the maths though. IQ is distributed on a Normal Curve (Gaussian curve) not logarithmically. In a sense there is a logarithmic curve involved though this is e^(-x-squared /2), so more complex than simply logarithmic.
Standard deviation is generally assumed to be 15 so with a Chinese mean of 105 that implies 0.0123% of the pop with IQ over 160 or about 177k.
But still with a lower mean of 100 the west would have about a quarter of that rate of >160 genii and a smaller population. I suspect too that 105 is possibly low for China and 100 high for the west. While there may still be some brain drain effect importing the best asians into the west I agree that a 10: ratio China to the west sounds roughly correct.
And your selection by talent point is very accurate.
And then more technically. IQ is normally distributed by design rather than nature. That is the scoring does not so measure IQ but orders all the respondents in rank order and then applies a normal curve on them to get a convenient measure which is called IQ. Yes many natural things (like height) do turn out to have a normal distribution. But there is no actual intelligence measure. Even if there was we have no idea if it would correlate linearly to IQ. Essentially any judgements about IQ of those over 130 are guesses, there is simply not a lot of data about.
None of that though challenges your point that the people running China are smarter than those in the west and selected to be smarter.