India

The Odds of an Indian Having an IQ Higher than 125 are Less than One in One Quadrillion

"Thanks to the Court's decision, only clean Indians (meaning upper caste Hindu Indians) or colored people other than Kaffirs [read: African Blacks], can now travel in the trains" M. K. Gandhi

Considering That There's More Poverty in India than Africa, Who Exactly Benefitted From Gandhi's Favored Accomplishment?

Certainly NOT the British!

"For some (not all) analyses,104 of the countries had their IQs estimated by averaging those from the most appropriate neighboring countries. For example, Afghanistan's IQ was estimated by averaging those from neighboring India (IQ=81) and Iran (IQ=84) to give an IQ of 83. The tables provided in IQ and the Wealth of Nations will be invaluable for researchers wishing to analyze subsets of the data or to extend them with additional data. Of course, the authors are aware that their data on both national IQs and economic indicators are only estimates and will contain errors. Their stunning results, however, leave little doubt that the margins of error were small enough to make the exercise meaningful. Error variance is typically randomly distributed and so works to diminish the strength of the associations between variables."

"International comparison of achievement among school-going 14 year olds across 25 high and low-income
countries, using IEA data collected in early 1970s, showed that the mean science test score of Indian students was the
second lowest. Iran was behind India by a small margin. Mean scores of students in Bolivia, Thailand, Colombia,
Peru, Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Paraguay were all higher than those of Indian students; the mean score of Japanese
students was twice as high as that of Indian students. The results were similar in (own language) reading
comprehension: median reading score was 26 points, Chiles mean was 14 points, Irans 8 points and Indias the
lowest at 5 points (Kingdon, 1994, p8)."

http://economics.ouls.ox.ac.uk/12991/1/gprg-wps-071.pdf

IF IQ scores follow a perfect Gaussian Distribution, and if Professor Lynn's estimate of IQ is anywhere close to accurate, then the following is a straight calculation of the maximum number of people with an IQ higher than 115:

Japan = 19,990,562
Korea = 7,932,763
Germany = 7,121,000
US = 7,052,546
Netherlands = 2,601,946
Singapore = 842,777
Catholics in US = 77,000
Whites in DC = 44,000
Israel = 11,200 [w caveats]
Blacks in US = 1,141
India [per Lynn] = 84,121
India [per PISA] = 390
Kenya = 0

And this is a straight calculation for the maximum number with an IQ higher than 145:

Japan = 3,994
Korea = 1,585
Germany = 48,900
US = 93
Netherlands = 520
Singapore = 325
Catholics in US = 8
Whites in DC = 168
Israel = 0 [w caveats]
Blacks in US = 0
India [per Lynn] = 0
India [per PISA] = 0
Kenya = 0

GS Chandy, Dreaming:

"My own 'IQ'. Though I do not buy the 'IQ' story's claims, I HAVE taken various 'IQ' tests: my scores have ranged between 135 to 175"

Even if his IQ was as high as 100, he'd be able to do the math which shows that NOBODY in India could possibly have an IQ of 175.

Why not? Very simple.

But let us do the math for him, just in case.

The average IQ of India is 72 [according to multiple standardized tests, not Professor Lynn's estimate], which means that one sixth of India's population [actually 203.2 million Indians] have an iQ higher than one standard deviation higher than 72 [or 82].

25.4 million have an IQ higher than 92, which is 2 SD.

1.778 million have an IQ higher than 102, the AVERAGE for Europe, which is 3 SD.

40,259 have an IQ higher than 112, the AVERAGE for Hong Kong, which is 4 SD.

381 have an IQ higher than 122, which is 5 SD

Nobody in India has an IQ higher than 125, which is 1 SD LOWER than the LOWEST OF his estimate of 135.

He has one chance out of 391 BILLION of having an IQ of 142, or 7 SD.

If he had even the SMALLEST brain in his skull, he would KNOW that Your casual and UTTERLY RIDICULOUS claim of having an IQ 175, TEN STANDARD DEVIATIONS HIGHER [10 SD] than the average for India, is less than laughable.

It would be less ridiculous to claim that he is 1,000 feet tall (and it seems only your ego is that tall).

AND this is based on India following the normal Gaussian Distribution which PISA just proved it does NOT follow. ZERO percent of the students in Rajasthan scored higher than 625 which is an IQ of only 125, AND that only the top 30% of Indians go to high school, AND that this school didn't even meet the international sampling requirements, meaning the average for all of India is another standard deviation LOWER, putting India's IQ at 65.

http://ajayshahblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/first-pisa-results-for-india-end-of.html 

<<<1. Your estimation that 75% of HP tested were Tibetans (bilinguals) is too generous either way. Tibetans in China tested close to OECD average. By your estimation, 75% of Americans would also be bilingual and disadvantaged.
2. Village vs city. This is the same well-accepted statistical methodology for every country. Why should India be treated differently. You method will give every village the same IQ as city dwellers. That is just not true.
3. You forget that only 15% of Indian school children reach high school to be tested by PISA. PISA results represents only the top 15% of India's population. Where as 90% of Chinese school children reach high school to be tested.
4. Based on my calculation, the top 2% of India's population has the same IQ as the bottom 3% of China's.>>>

"[if these] states can represent India, the two statements ``for every
ten top performers in the United States there are four in
India'' and ``for every ten low performers in the United
States there are two hundred in India'' are both consistent
with the data."

This is a nice dream. And it's probably a catchy political phrase in India. But their OWN data does NOT support that, or at least not the first part.

The 95th percentile is where the rubber meets the road. This is where everything happens. But the 95th percentile in Rajasthan, India, scores only 544. This is 179 points lower than the 95th percentile in Singapore, and almost that much lower than ALL the other Asian nations. ZERO percent of the Indian students in Rajasthan scored higher than 625, which is an IQ Of 125, compared to 44% in Singapore, 35% in Korea, 31% in Hong Kong, 24% in Japan, 10% in the Netherlands, 38% in Taipei, 11% in Hungary, and even 7% in the lowly USA. Are there other countries where zero percent have an IQ higher than 125? Sure, but they too are not barn burners:

Chile
Philippines
Botswana
Ghana
Tunisia
South Africa

A CORRECT statement which is true to India's OWN data is:

"[if these] states can represent India, the two statements ``for every
258,000 top performers in the United States there are ZERO in
India'' and ``for every ten low performers in the United
States there are two hundred in India'' are both consistent
with the data."


TABLE 4. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF 14-YEAR OLDS PASSING INTERNATIONAL MATHEMATICS BENCHMARKS, pg. 44

[The NUMBER of students with a TIMSS score higher than 625, or an IQ higher than 125]

Japan 291,000 or 0.11%
US 258,000 or 0.08%
Korea 226,000 or 0.4%.
Taipei 115,000
India 101,000 or 0.008%

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/06/17/000158349_20080617085945/Rendered/PDF/wps4644.pdf

India in its History, Won Only EIGHT Gold Medals, all Before the British Left 

Indian athletes have won a total of 26 medals, all at the Summer Games. For a period of time, India national field hockey team was dominant in Olympic competition, winning eleven medals in twelve Olympics between 1928 and 1980. The run included 8 gold medals total and six successive gold medals from 1928�1956.

India at the Olympics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comparatively, Norway, a country of only 4.4 million, has won 296.  Medals per 1,000,000 people:

Norway = 67.3

India = 8 / 1,300 million = 0.0061538461538462

Factor = 10,936 TIMES per capita

IQ of Drivers

Senegal with an IQ of 64 has 27% fewer fatalities than India, indicating that India's IQ might be 27% lower, or IQ = 55. This assumes a linear relationship between the average IQ of drivers and the tendency of them to cause fatal traffic accidents.

PISA Math 2009 & IQ

The state of Himachal Pradesh in India scored 338 in the PISA math test in 2009.  This is 37 points lower than Qatar who Professor Lynn estimates to have an average IQ of 78.  Consistently, across the world, from country to country, from year to year, each 8.3 point increase in the PISA math score equals a 1 point increase in IQ.  So scoring 37 points lower than Qatar is equivalent to an IQ 4.4 points lower, which puts India's IQ at 73.6, EXCEPT that most other Indian states score even lower than Himachal Pradesh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Another indicator that India's IQ is lower than the 81 that Professor Lynn graciously assigns it, is PPP adjusted GDP per capita. Nigeria with an IQ of 67 earns $300 per capita per year more ($6,100 vs. $5,800). The Republic of Congo with an IQ of 65 earns $800 more ($6,600 vs. $5,800), another indicator that India's IQ is MUCH closer to 63 than it is to 81.

2011 purchasing power parity dollars. Purchasing power parities (PPPs) are exchange rates adjusted for differences in the prices of goods and services across countries. In principle, one PPP dollar represents the same standard of living across countries. The U.S. serves as the base country for price comparisons and for currency conversions. Thus, for the U.S., one US$ equals one PPP$. But for India, for example, the rupee to US$ conversion rate �46.67 in 2011�is different from the rupee to PPP$ rate�14.975 for individual consumption expenditures by households. Thanks to the lower cost of living in India, this means that only Rs. 14.975, not Rs. 46.67, is needed to obtain what $1 buys in the U.S.


http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/07/08/a-global-middle-class-is-more-promise-than-reality/

The different definitions and different underlying small sample surveys used to determine poverty in India, have resulted in widely different estimates of poverty from 1950s to 2010s. In 2012, the Indian government stated 21.9% of its population is below its official poverty limit.[4] The World Bank, in 2011 based on 2005's PPPs International Comparison Program,[5] estimated 23.6% of Indian population, or about 276 million people, lived below $1.25 per day on purchasing power parity.[6][7] According to United Nation's Millennium Development Goal (MGD) programme 270 millions or 21.9% people out of 1.2 billion of Indians lived below poverty line of $1.25 in 2011-2012.[8]

30.9% on the following Normal Curve score lower than one half of a standard deviation lower than the average.  The United Nation's Millennium Development Goal (MGD) programme found that this many Indians earn less than 22 cents per day, or $80 per year, and that another third earn more than 23 cents per day, or $84 per year.

TIMSS & IQ

While India didn't participate in TIMSS, two states which are most likely representative of the rest of India, Orisa and Rajasthan, did take the test and did report their results.  At the low end, only 42% and 50% of India's students score higher than the Low International Benchmark of 400, compared to 99% in Singapore, 90% in the US, 52% in Egypt (IQ of 83), 51% in Bahrain (IQ of 83), and 42% in Morocco (IQ of 85).  At the high end, only 1% scored higher than the Advanced International Benchmark of 625, compared to 44% in Singapore, 8% in the Slovak Republic, 7% in the US, and 1% in Egypt (IQ of 83).  It's people in this intellectual range who are necessary to develop and sustain a technological society, something that not even a large and rapidly expanding population can overcome.

One percent of India's current population of 1,198,003,000 is 11,980,030, compared to 35% of Korea's 49,000,000 population of 17 million, and 7% of the US 310 million population of 21.7 million. So the number of Koreans who are capable of sustaining a technological society is 5 times greater than the number of Indians and almost as many Americans who are.

TIMSS 2003 Tables

Table 5. Average mathematics scale scores of eighth-grade students, by country: 2003

"The 2003 TIMSS study ranked India at 46 among 51 countries. Indian students� score was 392 versus average of 467 for the group. These results were contained in a Harvard University report titled �India Shining and Bharat Drowning�.

These results are not only a wake-up call for the �India Shining� brigade, but also raise serious questions about the credibility of India�s western cheerleaders like Indian-American journalist Fareed Zakaria and New York Times� columnist Tom Friedman. "

School students celebrate after checking their CBSE results. A global survey has found that the average 15-year-old Indian is over 200 points behind the global topper.

Rank Country Lynn IQ

1   a.. Hong Kong 107
2   b.. Korea, South 106
3   c.. Japan 105
4   d.. Korea, North 105
5   e.. Taiwan 104
6   i.. Netherlands 102
7   g.. Germany 102
8   h.. Italy 102
9   f.. Austria 102
10   l.. Switzerland 101
11 Scotland 101
12   k.. Sweden 101
13   j.. Luxembourg 101
14   o.. New Zealand 100
15   m.. Belgium 100
16   q.. United Kingdom 100
17   n.. China 100
18   p.. Singapore 100
19   s.. Poland 99
20   r.. Hungary 99
21   t.. Spain 99
22   v.. Australia 98
23   u.. France 98
24   z.. Norway 98
25   aa.. United States 98
26   w.. Denmark 98
27   x.. Iceland 98
28   y.. Mongolia 98
29   ab.. Canada 97
30   ad.. Estonia 97
31   af.. Latvia 97
32   ag.. Lithuania 97
33   ac.. Czech Republic 97
34   ae.. Finland 97
35   ak.. Slovakia 96
36   aj.. Russia 96
37   am.. Uruguay 96
38   ah.. Argentina 96
39   ai.. Belarus 96
40   al.. Ukraine 96
41   an.. Vietnam 96
42   aq.. Portugal 95
43   ao.. Malta 95
44   ap.. Moldova 95
45   ar.. Slovenia 95
46   as.. Israel 94
47   at.. Romania 94
48   ay.. Ireland 93
49   aw.. Bulgaria 93
50   av.. Chile 93
51   au.. Armenia 93
52   ax.. Georgia 93
53   az.. Kazakhstan 93
54   ba.. Macedonia 93
55   bb.. Yugoslavia 93
56   be.. Greece 92
57   bc.. Brunei 92
58   bd.. Cyprus 92
59   bf.. Malaysia 92
60   bh.. Thailand 91
61   bg.. Costa Rica 91
62   bj.. Croatia 90
63   bl.. Turkey 90
64   bi.. Albania 90
65   bk.. Peru 90
66   bn.. Indonesia 89
67   bm.. Cambodia 89
68   bo.. Suriname 89
69   bp.. Laos 89
70   bq.. Colombia 88
71   br.. Venezuela 88
72   bs.. Azerbaijan 87
73   bx.. Mexico 87
74   bv.. Jordan 87
75   bw.. Kyrgyzstan 87
76   bt.. Brazil 87
77   bu.. Iraq 87
78   by.. Samoa (Western) 87
79   bz.. Syria 87
80   ca.. Tajikistan 87
81   cb.. Tonga 87
82   cc.. Turkmenistan 87
83   cd.. Uzbekistan 87
84   ce.. Burma (Myanmar) 86
85   cf.. Philippines 86
86   cg.. Lebanon 86
87   ch.. Bolivia 85
88   ci.. Cuba 85
89   cj.. Morocco 85
90   ck.. Paraguay 85
91   da.. Tunisia 84
92   cl.. Algeria 84
93   cm.. Dominican Republic 84
94   cn.. El Salvador 84
95   co.. Guyana 84
96   cp.. Honduras 84
97   cq.. Iran 84
98   cr.. Kiribati 84
99   cs.. Libya 84
100   ct.. Marshall Islands 84
101   cu.. Micronesia 84
102   cv.. Nicaragua 84
103   cw.. Panama 84
104   cx.. Papua New Guinea 84
105   cy.. Puerto Rico 84
106   cz.. Solomon Islands 84
107   db.. Vanuatu 84
108   dc.. Afghanistan 83
109   dd.. Bahrain 83
110   de.. Belize 83
111   df.. Egypt 83
112   dg.. Kuwait 83
113   dh.. Oman 83
114   di.. Saudi Arabia 83
115   dj.. United Arab Emirates 83
116   dk.. Yemen 83
117   dl.. Bangladesh 81
118   dm.. India [lynn] 81
119   dn.. Maldives 81
120   do.. Mauritius 81
121   dp.. Pakistan 81
122   dq.. Seychelles 81
123   dr.. Sri Lanka 81
124   ds.. Ecuador 80
125   dt.. Trinidad & Tobago 80
126   du.. Comoros 79
127   dv.. Guatemala 79
128   dw.. Madagascar 79
129   ec.. Qatar 78
130   dx.. Barbados 78
131   dy.. Bahamas 78
132   dz.. Bhutan 78
133   ea.. Cape Verde 78
134   eb.. Nepal 78
135   ed.. Zambia 77
136   ee.. Antigua & Barbuda 75
137   ef.. Grenada 75
138   eg.. Dominica 75
139   eh.. St. Kitts & Nevis 75
140   ei.. St. Lucia 75
141   ej.. St.Vincent/Grenadines 75
142   ek.. Congo (Braz) 73
143   el.. Mauritania 73
144   em.. Uganda 73
145   en.. Botswana 72
146   eo.. Chad 72
147   ep.. Haiti 72
148   eq.. Jamaica 72
149   er.. Kenya 72
150   es.. Lesotho 72
151   et.. Mosambique 72
152   eu.. Namibia 72
153   ev.. South Africa 72
154   ew.. Swaziland 72
155   ex.. Sudan 72
156   ey.. Tanzania 72
157   ez.. Cote d'Ivoire 71
158   fa.. Ghana 71
159   fb.. Malawi 71
160 India [PISA] 71
161   fc.. Burundi 70
162   fd.. Cameroon 70
163   fe.. Rwanda 70
164   ff.. Angola 69
165   fg.. Benin 69
166   fh.. Togo 69
167   fi.. Central African Rep. 68
168   fj.. Djibouti 68
169   fk.. Eritrea 68
170   fl.. Mali 68
171   fm.. Somalia 68
172   fn.. Niger 67
173   fo.. Nigeria 67
174   fp.. Burkina Faso 66
175   fq.. Gabon 66
176   fr.. Zimbabwe 66
177   fs.. Congo (Zaire) 65
178   ft.. Gambia 64
179   fu.. Liberia 64
180   fv.. Senegal 64
181   fw.. Sierra Leone 64
182   fx.. Ethiopia 63
183   fy.. Guinea 63
184   fz.. Guinea Bissau 63          

              India (per TIMSS) 58 to 63

185   ga.. Sao Tome/Principe 59
186   gb.. Equatorial Guinea 59

The British Left in 1947, the Rupee CRASHED

Having spent (wasted) a lot of time trying to understand (sympathize with) Indians, it's now clear that the main reason the British ruled India for 200 years is there's literally no Indian qualified to do the job.  None of the leaders they've elected since then ever shown any such qualities.  Fortunately most of those in my industry have now left so it's no longer a problem.

The British left in 1947 and the value of the Rupee plunged 63 fold, from 1 per dollar in 1947 to 63 Rupees in 2013, a time during which our own inflation rate hit record levels At this rate it will be worth less than a penny by 2038, and less than half a penny by 2060. Conversely, the value of the Singapore Dollar more than doubled since then. Per the Gold Standard, when the British left, you could buy an ounce of gold for 139 Rupees, but. by 1974 it cost ten times as much (1,488), and now it's 102,500 Rupees.

This is a devaluation of more than 737 TIMES. If they were to invite the British back, I doubt if the British would fall for it this time.

Even if the Rupee were to suddenly stabilize for some unknown reason, there will soon be more than 810 million Indians living in poverty, compared to less than 60 million at the time the British left. Having driven in India and seeing how little respect they have for maintaining a distance between cars, it's amazing that anybody survives on Indian roads. Well, now the World Health Organization tells us that many of them don't: their traffic fatality rate is worse than many African countries. Per car, you're nine times more likely to be killed in India than the US (5,896 cars per fatality in the US vs. 688 in India, 854 in Libya and the Congo, and 751 in Eriteria). While Professor Lynn generously puts India's IQ at 81, when countries like the Congo with IQ's of 73 have SAFER roads and SAFER drivers than India, you have to wonder if he might have been off on his IQ estimate by a standard deviation.

How else can it be explained that India's main export is poverty?

Country on Parade
Dilip D'Souza

April 15, 2005

The overwhelming impression? Poverty. Two recent 24 hour journeys in
second-class compartments on trains, and I came home stunned -- I mean
this, I was simply stunned -- at the number and variety of people who
streamed through the coach asking for coins. Or who did so from the
stations we stopped at. Or who were obviously destitute and desperate
even if they did not beg.

Eunuchs; blind men; blind couples; men on their behinds with a leg
draped around their necks, one with a bag of grapes hanging from his
toes; young kids doing some little act; young girls singing
tunelessly; boys and men and women sweeping the compartment, some with
the shirts off their backs; filthy mothers with a seemingly lifeless
kid lolling in their arms; a bearded midget who didn't say a word; men
without one or more limbs; men on crutches; a young man who picked up
discarded watermelon rinds from under the train and chewed on them; a
smiling old man who switched from Tamil to English to Tamil again,
asking for money all the while; assorted others. From early in the
morning, all through the day, well into the night. On and on.

I've travelled second-class for over 35 years now: short journeys,
long ones, in every part of the country. For the sense it gives you of
what India is about, it is indisputably the best way to travel. It
occurred to me that on none of those journeys, over all those years,
did I see so many beggars, so much poverty. All of which, like always,
gave me a sense of what my country is about, circa 2005.

Yes, this is 2005. We are a decade-and-a-half into reforms and
liberalisation and the tearing down of socialism that, we have been
told, is addressing India's gargantuan problem of poverty in the most
efficient way possible. The proponents of this great exercise will
quote arguments and figures at length to make that case, to persuade
us that poverty is on the wane. And if you look at their figures, you
will indeed be persuaded. Figures are like that.

But then I do this second-class journey, and I am left with fumbling,
groping questions: Why can't I see it, this dramatic decrease in
poverty that's supposed to be chugging along so nicely? Why, in all
the years that I've noticed and been aware of realities in my country,
have I not felt there is a perceptible drop in the number of poor
people? And on this one journey, why do I see more beggars -- many
more -- than I ever have on such a trip?

Anecdotal evidence, those proponents will say, supercilious smile
spreading on their faces because they believe they know better.
Anecdotal evidence doesn't count. You have to look at the numbers. If
you do, you will understand what we've been saying: the move to free
markets is bringing more people out of poverty faster than anything
else ever has, at any time in our history. In fact, it's a proven fact
that free markets are the only mechanism there is to truly address
poverty.

So just give it some time.

Oh yes, time. After all, who would expect an end to widespread poverty
overnight? It must and will take time.

Then again, the reforms have been in place nearly 15 years. That's
over a third of the time from 1947 till liberalisation began. By any
standards, that hardly qualifies as "overnight" any more. By any
standards, after 15 years during which droves of people escaped from
being poor, I should see around me some perceptible decrease in
poverty.

On this trip, I didn't.

Look at it this way: let's say I've been piling our household trash
outside my front door for a year. Let's say I've steadily ignored my
wife's pleas to clean the godawful mess that's now built up there.
Until today, when I finally tell her I'm going to clean up. It's a
huge job, but I do get started on it. Every day, I show my wife
figures of the number of truckloads of dirt I've carted off from our
door to the city dump.

Four months from now -- one-third of the year that I dumped garbage
uncaringly at our front door -- would she be entitled to expect that
the rubbish pile has visibly diminished?

And if she doesn't see this -- if she instead sees it looming just as
large, perhaps even larger -- would she be entitled to think, this
husband of mine is doing something wrong. If he's doing anything at
all. What's more, would it make sense for me to smile superciliously
at her worries and whip out my figures again? Tell her that her fears
about the non-decreasing pile amount to just so much anecdotal
evidence, and that doesn't count?

Absurd, of course. By themselves, figures mean nothing. The anecdotal
evidence gives them heft and credibility.

Again, look at it this way: If I never had seen Indians defecating on
the tracks, on the rocks at low tide, by the side of the road -- yes,
if I never had seen such sights, it would be difficult to believe the
troubling statistic that nearly seven of every 10 Indians lack access
to reasonable sanitation. But I have seen them. That's why I have a
sense that the figure is likely to be true. What's more, it's the only
way I have of judging the truth in the figure.

In much the same way, our encounters with poor Indians are the
anecdotal evidence that allows us to judge the truth about levels of
poverty; about claims that those levels have decreased. What's more,
they are the only way we have to judge those claims.

There's no doubt in my mind: reforms must happen. But 15 years after
the process began, I can't help feeling that something is wrong about
the way we are pursuing them. For I am yet to see the one effect they
must have, first and above all: a visible lessening in the level of
Indian poverty. Fewer poor Indians around us. I can't see that.

This train journey, in which Indian poverty streamed past me as if we
were t some surreal alternate Republic Day parade, showed me as much.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/04/03/children_in...

Children in India cheaper than buffaloes: report
April 3, 2007

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Traffickers are selling children in India for
amounts that are often lower than the cost of animals and most of them
end up working as laborers or commercial sex workers, activists said
on Tuesday.

"Children are purchased like buffaloes," said Bhuvan Ribhu of Bachpan
Bachao Andolan (Save the Childhood Movement), quoting a study that is
due to be released later this year.

"While buffaloes may cost up to 15,000 rupees ($350), children are
sold at prices between 500 and 2,000 rupees ($12 and $45)," he told
Reuters.

For instance, two brothers in Bihar were recently given away for 250
rupees ($6) each by their parents and trafficked out of the state in
connivance with police, Ribhu said.

The group estimates that children account for 40 to 50 percent of all
victims of human trafficking. They are sold to work as domestic
laborers, or in the carpet industry, on farms or as commercial sex
workers.

The traffickers-police connection was so strong in some parts of the
country that traffickers scout freely and children rescued from
brothels and bonded labor were often victims again, he said.

'More poor' in India than Africa

The new measure of poverty assesses household poverty

Eight Indian states account for more poor people than in the 26 poorest African countries combined, a new measure of global poverty has found.

The Indian states, including Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, have 421 million "poor" people, the study found.

This is more than the 410 million poor in the poorest African countries, it said.

The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) measures a range of "deprivations" at household levels.

Developed by Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) with UN support, it will feature in the upcoming UNDP Human Development Report.

The measure assess a number of "deprivations" in households - from education to health to assets and services.

"The MPI is like a high resolution lens which reveals a vivid spectrum of challenges facing the poorest households," said OPHI director Dr Sabina Alkire.

GDP Per Capita in India is $1,327 per Year

Even chambermaids in Brazil, a country with an IQ of 87, earn three times more (at $3,894)!

Educational Quality, Economic Growth, Infant Mortality and.....IQ:

Why The Third World Remains Third World

By the late 20th century, it is clear that in spite of all the world's
efforts directed at relieving worldwide poverty, not all countries
perform equally and not all are on their paths towards successful
industrialization and sustainable development. A simple snapshot of
three sample countries show just how divergent countries in the world
are and can be. South Korea, Mexico, and the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (formerly Zaire): all started out in third world territory
half a century ago, yet over the past 30 years each country followed a
unique, signature trajectory.

What can possibly explain the above?

The World Bank released a major study in 2007 with new insights,
which, in layman's terms, are actually called common sense. In
Education Quality and Economic Growth authors Eric A. Hanushek and
Ludger W��mann "aims to contribute to the World Bank's education
agenda by communicating research findings on the impact of education
quality on economic growth. They show that indeed the quality of
education, rather than mere access to education, is what impacts
economic growth. These world-renowned researchers use data on economic
growth and student cognitive skills to help shift the dialogue to the
ever-pressing issue of education quality." (My emphasis)

In the preface, Fran�ois Bourguignon, Senior Vice President and Chief
Economist of the World Bank, wrote:

"As shown in this report, differences in learning achievements matter
more in explaining cross-country differences in productivity growth
than differences in the average number of years of schooling or in
enrollment rates......In recent surveys in Ghana and Zambia, it turned
out that fewer than 60 percent of young women who complete six years
of primary school could read a sentence in their own language."

The first part of the study continues, "Adding educational quality to
a base specification including only initial income and educational
quantity boosts the variance in GDP per capita among the 31 countries
in Hanushek and Kimko's sample that can be explained by the model from
33% to 73%. The effect of years of schooling is greatly reduced by
including quality, leaving it mostly insignificant. At the same time,
adding the other factors leaves the effects of quality basically
unchanged. Several studies have since found very similar results. In
sum, the evidence suggests that the quality of education, measured by
the knowledge that students gain as depicted in tests of cognitive
skills, is substantially more important for economic growth than the
mere quantity of education."

They're of course all saying the same thing. But read between the
lines. Tests for cognitive skills?? Hmmmmm. That's tap dancing very
close to a taboo. Can you guess what that taboo might be? Hint: 2
letters.

But before we look at that question, let's review a few more figures
from this landmark study.

First, there is no denying that high test scores are highly correlated
with economic growth, while years of schooling are not. That is,
horsepower counts way more than mileage. Make sure you click on the
graph to examine it more closely and note where the various countries
fall on in this plot.

Second, test scores have predictability on both low income nations and
high income nations, but the effects are magnified for lower income
nations. This alone has a lot of downstream ramifications, for one of
the goals of many international agencies seem to surround this
question of "equity", namely how can we "as one world" narrow the gap
between first world nations and third world nations? Only if third
world nations grow at a sustained higher rate than 1st world nations,
of course. For even if they grow at the same rate, the absolute
difference in GDP per capita will still increase and inequality will
still remain.

Yet if test scores are of even more importance for low income nations
as compared to high income nations, then there really is little cause
for optimism for third world poor countries with poor cognitive
skills.

If we re-examine the figure above, it does indeed appear that the four
Asian dragons (Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea) are skewing the
trend upwards. Yet the world bank analysis concludes that "several
East Asian countries feature both high educational quality and high
economic growth-these countries dominate the top right corner of the
figure. Still, the association between educational quality and growth
is not solely due to a difference between the East Asian countries and
the rest, or between any other world regions. Furthermore, when all 10
East Asian countries are dropped from the sample, the estimate on
educational quality remains statistically highly significant at a
point estimate of 1.3. The significant effect in the sample without
East Asian countries is also evident in the two separate sub-periods,
with the point estimates larger in the separate regressions."

As a very amusing side-point, the authors noted: "The institutional
framework affects the relative profitability of piracy and productive
activity. If the available knowledge and skills are used in the former
activity rather than the latter, the effect on economic growth may be
very different, perhaps even turning negative. The allocation of
talent between rent-seeking and entrepreneurship matters for growth:
countries with more engineering students grow faster and countries
with more law students grow more slowly." (!!) (My emphasis)

And therein lies another interesting issue. I have previously shown
that how in spite of all the hoopla about India's growth, India is now
clearly dwarfed by China, and the absolute differences in GDP between
South Korea and India are in fact increasing exponentially over the
past 3 decades such that their paths plotted on a log scale are
divergent. Yet India has everything going for it: it was the prot�g�
of the British empire, it has a vibrant democracy, and it has a
relatively high level of English facility. But the bane of India is
this: India has, on average, only meager educational achievements.

It is important to not just look at averages, but at those at the top
and at the bottom as well. One of the conclusions from the World Bank
report is that both low scorers and high scorers contribute
independently as predictors of economic growth. And as already shown
above, African countries typically do very poorly, while NE Asian
countries typically do very well. Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Singapore all
have very high proportion of high achievers.

And higher education quality and achievement have other implications
which are not touched on by this World Bank report. One is infant
mortality.

In The Effects of Education Quality on Income Growth and Mortality
Decline by Eliot A. Jamison, Dean T. Jamison, and Eric A. Hanushek
(NBER Working Paper No. 12652; October 2006) the authors note that
education quality appears to improve per capita income levels probably
not through shifting the level of the production function, probably
not through increasing the impact of an additional year of education,
but rather, very likely, through increasing a country's rate of
technological progress. Mortality rates complement income levels as
indicators of national well-being and improved education quality
increases the rate of decline in infant mortality.

Here is a graph of infant mortality vs time of the three nations that
we considered earlier: Korea, Mexico, and the Democractic Republic of
Congo.

Education quality and achievement seem to be a 'higher order' factor
in that other variables do depend on it.

Permit me a slightly political digression. In a truly honest but
heartrending moment, authors Eric A. Hanushek and Ludger W��mann
hinted at the death of, how should I put it, the liberal dream of
egalitarianism and utopianism. First, they honestly recognize that
throwing more money and resources into the system -- the traditional
approach -- is not the answer. Afterall, expenditure per student does
not drive student performance differences across countries. The figure
below is devastating:

The red line is the best fit line when all countries are taken into
account. Yet a closer inspection of the data reveals that the above
relationship is weighted down on the left primarily by two very
outlier countries: Greece and Mexico, where students significantly
under-perform. If these two countries are taken out of the equation,
the dotted green line shows that there is no relation between
expenditure per student and subsequent performance!

This, by the way, contrasts with the four Asian dragons above where
even if you remove them from the equation the relationship between
educational quality, as measured by achievement scores, and economic
growth still holds.

So if throwing money is not the solution what is? The authors now
recognize their task is a very daunting one indeed. They ended the
study with a whole section under a very stirring battle cry:

* The need to alter institutions fundamentally is inescapable (my
emphasis)

Of course, this is utopian by itself. The psychology of liberalism is
not too dissimilar to the anarchic impulse of trying to changing a
society in fundamental ways - in some cases uprooting society, in
other cases smashing tradition, while in other cases, blowing up
(sometimes literally) the institutions in order to remake society in a
new image when facts are created rather than faced. But that's a
digression.

Still, what is very unclear is how this Sisyphean task can really be
accomplished. Datum: One question asked to eighth-graders in TIMSS
2003 was a very simple one: "Alice ran a race in 49.86 seconds. Betty
ran the same race in 52.30 seconds. How much longer did it take Betty
to run the race than Alice? (a) 2.44 seconds (b) 2.54 seconds (c) 3.56
seconds (d) 3.76 seconds." While 88% of eighth grade students in
Singapore, 80% in Hungary, and 74% in the United States got the
correct answer (a), only 19% in Saudi Arabia, 29% in South Africa, and
32% in Ghana got the correct answer. Random guessing would have
yielded a 25% average."

Hmmmm.

So, how do we square this circle?

The answer "we can't" is of course not acceptable (ahem). Great feats
have been achieved before lunch and so the impossible only takes
longer. The authors offered some hodgepodge solutions, including, for
instance: quality of teachers (but what if a country cannot provide a
critical mass of not merely educated but educable adults to begin
with?), school choice and competition (something that post-civil
rights era US-integrationist policies and desegregation bussing is not
allowing), school autonomy (favoring local and not central decision
making), and school accountability (e.g. local autonomy over teacher
salaries and course content that is hinged with objective, external,
exam performances.)

Still, at the very end, the authors lamented:

* "...[A]ttempts to improve quality have frustrated many
policymakers around the world...."

* "....Uncertainty about the best design of incentive programs for
schools is most acute in developing countries, largely due to lack of
relevant experience. For this reason, it is especially important to
implement a program of experimentation and evaluation-a key missing
aspect of policymaking in most developing countries. Education policy
must be viewed as evolutionary, where ongoing evaluation permits
discarding policies that are ineffective while expanding those that
are productive."

Translation: No one knows what the solution is. And there are really
no foreseeable effective solutions at hand.

The above rationalizing is all tragically unnecessary if we throw in
one other variable: IQ. It may be that current inequalities are due
not so much to lack of 'equity' per se, as measured by institutional
imperfections, but rather a reflection of underlying individual and
group abilities. But this is so odious that it is never mentionable.
Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary General, famously asserted
in April 2000 that intelligence "is one commodity equally distributed
among the world's people". And the authors in this World Bank study
seem to have already tap danced around the subject by repeating using
the term "cognitive skills", yet they inevitably fall shy of using the
term "cognitive abilities", a euphemism widely accepted for
psychometric IQ.

So, are IQs related to standardized test scores and international test
scores? In terms of standardized tests, it is well known that SATs do
correlate IQs. One calculated an r of roughly 0.82. International test
scores are even better correlated with IQ scores. The TIMSS is
correlated with IQ at a level of close to 0.90. Other studies have
shown that national IQs had (attenuation corrected) correlations of
between 0.92 and 1.00 with scores in math and science. Lynn and Mikk
(2007) in the above study reported that these results are interpreted
as a validation of national IQs and suggest that national differences
in educational attainment may be attributable to differences in IQ, or
alternatively that national IQs and in educational attainment are both
indicators of the mental ability of national populations. And national
IQ is also positively associated with national per capita income (r = .
61).

Even detractors agree with the conclusion that there is a link between
IQ and the wealth and poverty of nations. Hunt and Wittmann wrote, for
example, "We conclude that in spite of the weaknesses several of their
data points Lynn and Vanhanen's empirical conclusion was correct, but
we question the simple explanation that national intelligence causes
national wealth. We argue that the relationship is more complex."

So why make all the fuss? What's the difference between an IQ test and
a SAT or TIMSS or PISA anyway? Aren't both just predictors? Yes,
except.......

IQ is very well studied and are substantially heritable, while
achievement test scores are at least more easily coachable and at
least in the public's mind more politically acceptable because it
purports to test an environmental component of achievement rather than
a biological or genetic one.

The American Psychological Association has this to say on IQ:

* The role of genes and environment (nature vs. nurture) in
determining IQ is reviewed in Plomin et al. (2001, 2003). The degree
to which genetic variation contributes to observed variation in a
trait is measured by a statistic called heritability. Heritability
scores range from 0 to 1, and can be interpreted as the percentage of
variation (e.g. in IQ) that is due to variation in genes. Twins
studies and adoption studies are commonly used to determine the
heritability of a trait. Until recently heritability was mostly
studied in children. These studies find the heritability of IQ is
approximately 0.5; that is, half of the variation in IQ among the
children studied was due to variation in their genes. The remaining
half was thus due to environmental variation and measurement error. A
heritability of 0.5 implies that IQ is "substantially" heritable.
Studies with adults show that they have a higher heritability of IQ
than children do and that heritability could be as high as 0.8. The
American Psychological Association's 1995 task force on "Intelligence:
Knowns and Unknowns" concluded that within the White population the
heritability of IQ is "around .75"

These heritabilities are huge. And it is not immediately amenable to
any 'equalizing' or piecemeal intervention. And it poses a very real
and present "democratic dilemma" that may have no technical solutions.

Still, we rejoice that when taking everything together, we achieve a
moment of rare sociobiological consilience:

* IQ -> educational achievement -> economic growth -> decrease in
infant mortality via technological advances

While Kofi Annan did not seem able to bring himself to face the truth,
the world bank report seemed too uneasy not to ask the pointed
rhetorical question: "How can education policies in developing
countries create the competencies and learning achievements required
for their citizens to prosper in the future?"

They gave a very terse but tentative answer: "The binding constraint
seems to be institutional reform-not resource expansions within the
current institutional systems."

One can't help but wonder if they are trying to convince others or if
they were really trying to convince themselves.

But I submit to you that Occam's razor cuts ruthlessly. The totality
of evidence points to something even deeper. In the context of
economic growth, inherent factors such as mental and biological limits
may in reality be the ultimate binding constraints.

Never miss the forest for the trees.

* * *

Addendum -- forgot the data points:

* South Korea - IQ 106
* Mexico - IQ 87
* Democractic Republic of Congo - IQ 73

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/india_statistics.html

India's GNI Per Capita is $1,170 WITH Foreign Aid From the UK and the US

42% In Poverty vs. 0% in Korea and US, 2% in Russia, 5% in Brazil (IQ 87), and 16% in China

503,161,260 of India's 1,198,003,000 people live below the international poverty line of $1.25 per day.

The number of people in India living in this abject poverty is three times greater than the entire population of Russia, ten times greater than the entire population of Korea, and FORTY TIMES greater than the population of the entire Los Angeles Metropolitan Area!

What other than poverty could India possibly offer the world, or export to other countries?

India's IQ: 82, or 73?

It's Professor Lynn who graciously puts India's average IQ at 82. But when you look at the poverty in India, and the GNI per capita of India of $1,327 as estimated by Unicef, even this estimate seems much too high. There are few countries around with IQs in that range which have such a low GNI per capita. For example, Egypt has a similar IQ but its GNI per capita is $2,070, more than fifty percent higher. Ditto for Iran at $4,530, 3.4 times higher. Ditto for Kuwait, at $43,940, THIRTY THREE times higher. And Panama, at $6,740, 5 times higher. And Ecuador with an IQ 2 points lower earns $3,940, or 3 times higher. Yemen is about the only country with an equivalent IQ with productivity as low as India, but they're in the midst of a civil war. Guatemala has an IQ 3 points lower but earnings of $2,630, twice as high. Even the Congo with an IQ 9 points lower has earnings of $1,830, 37% higher.

If we adjust IQ and assume that GNI per capita from Unicef is accurate, then India acts like it ought to have an IQ of around 73 rather than 82.

That's as honest an assessment as can made of India's academic problems, and clearly they are far, far different from ours. What fixes Indian educators apply there certainly cannot be applied here.

India Calls UK Aid to India of $441 Million "Peanuts"

Yes, it is true that to 64 million Brits, this represents less than 0.02% of their GNP, but so what?  Why should the 64 million Brits work even one second in order to subsidize  India's teeming, and unappreciative, and downright ungrateful, masses?  And it IS true that our contribution is less than 0.0004% of our GDP, but the SAME questions arise.

Math Forum Critique

"1. I accept that there ARE huge variations in human intelligence between different people: we have a few people possessing very high intelligence; a few others possessing extremely low intelligence; and a whole lot of people in between the extremes. That is, there certainly is a 'Gauss Curve' (normal distribution curve) for human intelligence - with the strong qualification that human intelligence simply cannot be measured by way of what's available as 'intelligence quotients'. (No one with any common sense should accept the 'Bell Curve interpretation' of the normal distribution curve as representing anything but a laughable caricature of science - see No. 2. below)."

Even though there is a close correlation between IQ and incomes, it's the way the worldwide free enterprise system rewards performance and punishes nonperformance which is a far more accurate measurement of a person or a group's output.

Across the world, and from state to state, standard deviations for salaries and GNI per capita are about 8% of the salary. Once adjusted for artificial inflation of India's GNI, like welfare from the US and the UK, India is at $772 per year, about half that of Senegal at $1,456. An income in India of $1,080 is five standard deviations higher than the mean, which means that only 360 Indians in the entire country earn that much. The odds of an Indian earning $1,143, or six standard deviations higher than the mean, are one in a billion, and the odds of earning $1,267, or 8 standard deviations higher than the mean, are one in one quadrillion. Conversely, only 16,000 of Senegal's 12 million people earn as little as the AVERAGE Indian, and only 404 of China's 1,346 million people earn as little as $2,172.

By Western standards, Brazil is a poor country, but of the 194 million people there, only 58 of them earn less than $1,816, and they would be very rich in India, earning far more than the average Indian has one chance in one quadrillion of earning.

Of 16 million people in the Netherlands, only 5 of them earn less than $29,610, which is far more than any Brazilian could ever hope to earn, as a Brazilian has one chance in a QUADRILLION of earning $4,752.

By Western standards, Italy is also a poor country, with the Netherlands earning 40% more. Of 60 million Italians, only 18 of them earn as much as the AVERAGE person in the Netherlands. Yet an Italian has one chance in one QUADRILLION of earning LESS than $12,990 per year, a salary which would make him RICH in Brazil, China, Senegal, or India, right?

The following Gaussian Distributions of GNI per capita by country show how much bigger the gap in incomes is than the gap between the IQ tests which GSC (almost accurately) disputes. 

80% of Teachers In India are ABSENT

Ingrate Indians Call British Financial Aid to India "PEANUTS"

Andrew Mitchell has secured an agreement to provide aid to India over the next four years, in a move likely to trigger disquiet among some Conservative MPs.

The international development secretary has agreed a package involving private sector partnerships and the use of loans and small investments as seed capital alongside efforts to support maternal health, sanitation and family planning in three Indian states.

The plan will be announced formally in the next few days, according to people familiar with the negotiations.

It had been feared that New Delhi would reject the programme altogether, after Pranab Mukherjee, the finance minister, told the Indian parliament last year he would turn it down if London tried to cut back its commitment.

The UK spent �280m in India in 2009/10 � its largest bilateral aid programme � but the figure was dismissed by Mr Mukherjee as �peanuts� compared to the overall size of India�s economy.

Following a meeting with the Indian finance ministry at the end of last year, Mr Mitchell was able to allay Mr Mukherjee�s fears, securing an agreement that ministers believe is crucial to keeping open its links to one of the world�s fastest-growing economies.

A spokesman for the Department for International Development said: �We have been working closely with the government of India to agree the future shape of our development programme. We will publish the final plan shortly.

�As Andrew Mitchell made clear following the aid review, we are changing our approach. We will target aid at India�s three poor states and at the poorest women and girls. We will invest much more in the private sector � to ensure delivery of jobs, products and basic services to the poor.

The agreement is likely to spark controversy among Conservative backbenchers, many of whom have argued against giving aid to a country with its own space and aid programmes, and with an annual growth rate of 8.5 per cent. India even announced its own $11bn aid agency in July, providing money for Afghanistan, Bangladesh and several African countries, among others.

Mr Mitchell has previously argued for continued aid on humanitarian grounds, saying in February: �India has more poor people in it than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. If you�re going to achieve the [UN] millennium development goals, you have to make big progress in India.�

Officials acknowledge that without a major slug of funding to India, the millennium development goals will be unreachable. But they are also concerned that the UK should turn its focus from hitting those goals and on to targeting the world�s poorest, wherever they exist. As a consequence, aid to India is expected to fall sharply after 2014.