» 2009年PISA智商测试中国结果分析
PISA测试为国际学生能力评估计划(英文：Programme for International Student Assessment；简写：PISA)，是一个由OECD筹划的对全世界15岁学生学习水平的测试计划，最早开始于2000年，每三年进行一次。该计划旨在发展教育方法与成果，是目前世界上最具影响力的国际学生学习评价项目之一。中国和印度2009年开始加入PISA测试国。
译文来源:
原文地址：http://akarlin.com/2012/08/13/analysis-of-chinas-pisa-2009-results/
原创翻译：龙腾网 www.ltaaa.com 翻译：catflow 转载请注明出处
正文翻译:
原创翻译：龙腾网 www.ltaaa.com 翻译：catflow 转载请注明出处
本文论坛地址：http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-153035-1-1.html
Posted on August 13, 2012
As human capital is so important for prosperity, it behoves us to know China’s in detail to assess whether it will continue converging on developed countries. Until recently the best data we had were disparate IQ tests (on the basis of which Richard Lynn’s latest estimate is an IQ of 105.8 in his 2012 book Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences) as well as PISA international standardized test scores from cities like Shanghai and Hong Kong. However, the problem was that they were hardly nationally representative due to the “cognitive clustering” effect. The Chinese did not allow the OECD to publish data for the rest of the country and this understandably raised further questions about the situation in its interior heartlands, although even in 2010 I was already able to report a PISA representative saying that “even in some of the very poor areas you get performance close to the OECD average.”
Happily (via commentator Jing) we learned that the PISA data for Zhejiang province and the China average had been released on the Chinese Internet. I collated this as well as data for Chinese-majority cities outside China in the table below, while also adding in their PISA-converted IQ scores, the scores of just natives (i.e. minus immigrants), percentage of the Han population, and nominal and PPP GDP per capita.
幸运的是我从中国网上找到了中国其他地区的数据。我同时把中国之外华人聚居的主要城市的数据也放在下面的表格里，并加上他们的PISA成绩、仅仅包含本地人的PISA成绩、汉族人口比例、以及人均名义购买力GDP。
* Twelve provinces including Shanghai, Zhejiang, Beijing, Tianjin, Jiangsu totaling 621 schools, 21,003 students. Results have been released for Shanghai, and later on for Zhejiang (59 schools, 1,800 students of which 80% were township-village schools) and for the 12-province average.
(1) Academic performance, and the IQ for which it is a good proxy, is very high for a developing nation. Presumably, this gap can largely be ascribed to the legacy of initial historical backwardness coupled with Maoist economics.
(2) The average PISA-converted IQ of the 12 provinces surveyed in PISA is 103.0. (I do not know if provincial results were appropriately weighed for population when calculating the 12-province average but probably not). We know the identities of five of the 12 tested provinces (Shanghai, Zhejiang, Beijing, Tianjin, Jiangsu). They are all very high-income and developed by Chinese standards. Furthermore, these five provinces with the exception of Tianjin all perform well above average according to stats from a Chinese online IQ testing website.The provinces of Jiangsu and Zhejiang also have a reputation in China as gaokao powerhouses.
(3) The Chinese average as given by PISA therefore appears to have an upwards bias, as at least a third of the tested provinces Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Beijing are at the very top end of the Chinese IQ league charts. As such, the true IQ average for China is likely closer to 101-102.
(4) The very high score of Shanghai (111.6) is surely for the most part a reflection of its long status as a magnet of Chinese cognitive elites. This may well be true for Hong Kong (106.9) too although perhaps to a lesser extent. But the IQ of native Taiwanese is 105.1 even though the Han Chinese there are substantially interbred with lower-IQ aborigines. Singapore (107.5) too drew Chinese cognitive elites, and quite consciously too - their immigration policies were (are) de facto cognitively elitist but on the other hand, this is counteracted by their large, lower-IQ Malay and Indian minorities. Regardless, one cannot escape the conclusion that with the (unexplained) exception of Macau, all developed Han majority regions have IQ’s in the 105-110 range. Likewise with other East Asians, such as native Koreans (106.6) and native Japanese (105.3). This means that there is a 5-10 point IQ gap between developed East Asian regions and the Chinese average.
(5) The biggest gaps between China and Chinese enclave regions are typically where we can reasonably hypothesize a “cognitive clustering” effect, so minus that the current gap is probably closer to 5 points. This means that China very likely still has the potential to raise its average IQ by c. 5 points via the Flynn Effect.
(译注：弗林效应(Flynn effect)指智商测试的结果逐年增加的现象。弗林效应是以James R. Flynn命名的。最早提出這現象的人是Richard Lynn。在1982年的一期《自然》內，他提出了美國人做智力測驗的成績越來越好。James Flynn在1984年和1987年指出，這個現象具長期性、明顯、在不少發達國家也有。from wiki)
(6) A side-consequence is that this presents a serious challenge to Ron Unz’s theory of The East Asian Exception to Socio-Economic IQ Influences.
(6)东亚在社会-经济IQ影响上的特例似乎对罗恩·伍兹的理论造成了挑战。
As regards Chinese intelligence in global perspective
全球视野下的中国人智力
Below is another table with a list of countries representing a typical sample of the developed countries that China is striving to become; and the emerging nations (BRIC’s and SE Asian) with which China is typically compared.
下面这个表展示了发达国家大体的数据，也就是中国正在努力成为的地区；以及正在崛起的地区(金砖四国以及东南亚)与中国数据作个对比。
(1) Assuming that average Chinese IQ is now 101-102:
(1)假设中国的平均IQ现在是101-102之间：
Means that it is approximately equivalent to the German IQ of 101.5 (with the typical East Asian bias towards better numerical and worse verbal scores).
换言之中国目前的IQ水平和德国(101.5)水平相当(东亚地区往往在数学上高分而在文字上是短板)。
As of today, this IQ level is still somewhat below those of other developed East Asian nations be they Korean, Japanese, or Han majority. It is also slightly below the results of Australians, Canadians, native Germans and white Americans; and approximately equal to the results of native Britons and French.
Relative to the BRIC’s, the Chinese average IQ is substantially ahead of Russia (95.3) and greatly ahead of Brazil (85.2). As for India, whose average IQ is 75.4 according to PISA results from two fairly rich provinces, there is simply no comparison whatsoever. As I have indeed pointed out on numerous occasions.
(2) Needless to say this is an extremely good result that practically ensures convergence to developed country levels within a reasonable time frame. This is especially true because as is almost always the case, there exists a positive feedback loop with greater development pushing average Chinese IQ to its genetic “ceiling” of approximately 105-108. That in turn will further raise the capacity of Chinese labor for skills absorption and even greater productivity.
The commentator Jing graciously provided the list of all the 12 Chinese provinces that participated in the PISA 2009 study. They were: Tianjin, Shanghai, Beijing, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Jilin, Hubei, Hebei, Hainan, Sichuan, Yunnan, Ningxia.
This allowed me to make an interesting conclusion. No matter whether you weigh the provincial IQ scores above by population or not, the difference between the 12 provinces and China on average is only about 0.5 points in favor of the 12 provinces. This means that the PISA sample is actually pretty good and that China’s PISA-derived IQ is in fact about 102.5 or so.
