Good.
I picked Bangladesh on purpose, because I knew you'd go away and come back with the 82 average. And then you'd have to point out the discrepancy between countries like China and Chinese Americans, Bangladesh and Bangladeshi (or Indian) Americans.
Are you able to point me to an IQ test designed by A Sri Lankan or Peruvian, taking into consideration how they see pattern?
This whole IQ culture and those that score the highest always seem to tend toward those good at maths (hence physics, chess), as if to say those are the only indications of intelligence.
I, for example, am exceptionally good at maths and pattern recognition. As a kid, I was terrible at reading and comprehension. I'd get very average to low marks at subjects that required a lot of reading - History, Economics, e.t.c, but I'd almost always get 100% at maths and quantitative subjects. When I took the so called IQ tests, I knocked it out of the park because the pattern recognition thing looked like a joke to me. I wouldn't say I was hence more "intelligent" than someone that did poorly at that, but knows how to survive in the jungle.
Another thing is, if you take a whole bunch of those IQ tests, you'd get better scores after a while because you'd get better at taking the tests. Those tests are designed like the quantitative tests i took in school, so again, I'm more versed at taking the tests than, say, someone who's childhood education didn't involve those kind of tests (- that is cultural)
One question for you. If you say IQ is an accurate test of intelligence, and you mentioned the upper classes, what is the main determinant of a person's IQ?
Ive never looked into a test by a Sri Lankan or any specific group.
But, there are some tests that include comprehension and vocabulary. Some lanuage aspects. But, I'd argue that kind of test can be very culturally determined as not all languages are the same.
Also, I've never said its the only indicator of intelligence. I've just said it's a reasonably accurate one based on correlation studies. That was my main point. One big problem with IQ tests, I will admit, is that they dont measure potential or educability of someone. This is more so a problem with younger people taking them.
Genetics plays a major role. But me mentioning the upper classes of those countries was due to the fact that they have much more access to education than the lower classes. Not to say that it's all genetics or all education. India for example, has a caste system and some distinct groups of people in the country. So, you can make an argument on a genetic and an environment case.
If you don't mind me asking, what country are you from? And do you know which specific test you took?