Richard Lynn
IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial 2002 book by Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster Dr. Richard Lynn, Northern Ireland, and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Helsinki, Finland, arguing that differences in national income are largely explained by differences in national intelligence. The book includes the authors' estimates of average IQ scores for each country, based on their analysis of published reports; their argument that national gross domestic product per capita is correlated with IQ, and their conclusion that the IQ differences correlated with income differences by a factor of about 0.7.
In several cases, IQ did not correlate well with GDP. In these cases, the authors argued that differences in GDP were caused by differences in natural resources and whether the nation used a socialist or "market" economy. One example of this was Qatar, whose IQ was estimated by Lynn and Vanhanen to be about 78, yet had a disproportionately high per capita GDP of roughly USD $17,000. The authors explain Qatar's disproportionately high GDP by its high oil resources. The authors argued that the mainland China's per capita GDP of roughly USD $4,500 could be explained by its use of a communist economic system for much of its recent history. The authors also predicted that communist nations who they believe have high IQs, including the PRC, Vietnam, and North Korea, can be expected to gain GDP by moving from centrally-planned to market economic systems.
The authors stated that they believe IQ is due to both genetic and environmental factors. They also stated that low GDP can cause low IQ, just as low IQ can cause low GDP.
The authors argued that it is the ethical responsibility of rich, high-IQ nations to financially assist poor, low-IQ nations, as it is the responsibility of rich citizens to assist the poor.
The book was cited several times in the popular press, notably the British conservative broadsheet The Times. It has been the subject of some debate in academia, with at least one positive review, but a number of reviewers heavily criticised its statistical methods.
National IQ estimates
Central to the book's thesis, and perhaps one of its most controversial parts, is a tabulation of what Lynn and Vanhanen believe to be the average IQs of the world's nations. Rather than do their own IQ studies (a potentially massive project), the authors average and adjust existing studies.
The figures were obtained by taking unweighted averages of different IQ tests. The number of studies is very limited; the IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, two studies in 30 nations. The number of participants in each study were usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred. The exceptions to this were the United States and Japan, for which studies using more than several thousand participants are available. Studies that were averaged together often used different methods of IQ testing, different scales for IQ values and/or were done decades apart.
There are also errors in the raw data presented by authors. The results from Vinko Buj's 1981 study used different scaling than Lynn and Vanhanen. Also, Buj's original IQ figures in Ireland, Norway and Greece differ from the figures given by Lynn and Vanhanen.
They also adjusted the figures relative to the baseline of UK results, which was taken as 100. When the overall population of the sample countries is taken into account, the mean IQ of the world as indicated by these figures is about 90, which is different than the standard calibration, which sets the mean IQ of any total population at 100.
To account for the Flynn effect (an increase in IQ scores over time), the authors sometimes adjust the results of older studies upward by an arbitrary number of points. Because of the arbitrary adjustments and the fact that only limited data are available for most nations, the figures given should be considered estimates and can reasonably be expected to vary by about 10 or 15 points in either direction.
It should be noted that there is controversy about whether IQ is a valid measurement of intelligence, especially among third-world populations. See the article at IQ for details, as well as the article Race and intelligence. In particular, note that most individuals in a given country will not have the country's average IQ, and that it is generally agreed that many factors, including environment, culture, demographics, wealth, pollution, and educational opportunities, affect measured IQ.
One common criticism is that many of the countries with the best average scores are those where testing (e.g. American SATs, baccalaureate examinations) is a crucial aspect of the educational process, and that many of these tests (esp. the SATs) have been shown to be very similar to IQ tests. In these nations, because students study extensively for the high-stakes examinations, it is quite possible that IQ scores are higher because people are subjected to frequent examinations for which they prepare extensively. See Flynn effect.
There are many difficulties when one measuring IQ scores across cultures, and in multiple languages. First of all, use of the same set of exams requires translation, with all its attendant difficulties. To adapt to this, many IQ testers rely on both verbal tests, involving word analogies and the like, and non-verbal tests, which involve pictures, diagrams, and conceptual relationships (such as in-out, big-small, and so on). Roughly the same results tend to be gained with either approach.
Estimates of other countries
For the rest of the 185 nations, no studies are available. In those cases, the authors have presented an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of surrounding nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Those estimates are not included in calculations of income differences.
Several cases merit specific attention. To obtain a figure for South Africa, the authors averaged IQ studies done on different ethnic groups, resulting in a figure of 72. The figures for Colombia, Peru and Singapore were arrived at in a similar manner. For the PRC, the authors used a figure of 109.4 from a study done in Shanghai and adjusted it down by an arbitrary 6 points because they believed the average in China's rural areas was probably less than that in Shanghai. Another figure from a study done in Beijing was not adjusted downwards.
U.S. states
Some sources, such as The Economist, 15th-21st May 2004 (p.44 in the UK edition), have reported a list of average IQ's of U.S. states, supposedly from IQ and the Wealth of Nations. In fact, such data do not appear in the book. In the following week's edition, The Economist admitted their error and stated (in their column On the trail) that they "were the victim of a hoax".
References
- IQ and the Wealth of Nations Richard Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen Praeger, ISBN 027597510X
