"Armed with this learning “Rosetta Stone,” we revisit various well-known results, showing, inter alia, that learning differences between most- and least-developed countries are larger than existing estimates suggest."
So, it's another item linking study. The idea is to find items that have been reused across these tests, and thus one can link the scores with some math tricks. Coverage looks like this.
The results look pretty much like every other such ranking.
Unsurprisingly, the correlation of these new results with existing ones are very similar. There is a comparison to the Altinok 2018 scores, these are the World Bank ones, r = .90 or so.
These authors are very PC and only talk about vague "human capital", "test scores" and the like. Like the other PC researchers in the area, they are puzzled by the oil country results, and returns to schooling. The magic education pill is in another castle.
There is of course no mention of intelligence, nor any of the intelligence researchers who have been using these country comparisons for decades: Lynn, Meisenberg, Rindermann, Becker, et al, not even Garett Jones.
Even extreme luck from natural resources does not outweigh psychology in explaining variation in wealth. Take Nauru, the fattest country in the world, 95% are overweight and 70%+ are obese.
In the 1970s, they mined bird poo (guano) and sold it so that their country was the wealthiest in the world GDP per capita (population about 10k Polynesians). The plan was to put the money into a national trust fund, like Norway does. The interests from this massive wealth would enable them to basically finance a welfare state perpetually. However, it was not to be due to "mismanagement and corruption". Today they are about as poor as they were to begin with. Rags to riches to rags.
Richard Lynn published a posthumous papers on race differences in schizophrenia. The worldwide pattern in races living in Western countries appear to follow their relative intelligence levels. Highest in Blacks, elevated in various other groups, Amerindians/Hispanics, Aboriginies, Maori, MENAP and so on. East Asians seem to be slightly lower, but little data.
Africans (Blacks) vs. Europeans (Whites) higher no matter if they live in USA, UK, or Sweden.
Everybody knows some topics or questions are taboo, but which ones? Do people agree? Decided to find out. We asked 500 Americans online to rate the tabooness of 29 questions, and this was the result.
Race and IQ was the winner, even beating incest, pedophilia, gay germs etc.
The results were almost entirely consistent across all subgroups: age, sex, politics, race, science knowledge. The correlations for taboo ratings across groups were >.90, close to 1.00 without sampling error.
Though note that some grounds find everything more taboo than others.
Why did we look into this? Well, back in 2021, I made fun of this paper. And now we have the published demonstration the taboo hierarchy.
Socialism attracts losers. This is also true for immigration socialism.
Attaining a reasonable outcome -- no more costs from foreigners in the country -- requires drastic measures. Even reducing 'refugees' by 90% is not enough.
To understand the fiscal effects of immigration you have to start with a plot like this one. From the perspective of the government, people below 25 are net negatives, between 25 and 75, they are net positive, and then negative again.
The reasons for this are straightforward. Below 25's cost the state money in terms of childcare and education and don't yet make much money, and thus don't pay much in income tax. Old people cost money in retirement, old peoples homes, and healthcare.
The current net fiscal effect of an immigration group thus depends on its age distribution to a large extent. Maybe a group is currently positive because it is of working age, but that is short-term thinking. You must apply a lifetime perspective -- longtermism.
Education attainment is often given as the best example of heritability not being noticeably stronger than shared environment. But this conclusion is somewhat incorrect because of the assortative mating bias. In this study of Finnish and Dutch families, heritabilities were estimated at 55% and 66%, compared with shared environment of 16% and 13%.
As usual, beware that variances are deceptive. If heritability is 60% and shared environment is 15%, this doesn't mean that genetics is 4x as important. You need to take the square root to get the path coefficients. These are 0.77 and 0.39. Thus, genetics is about 2x as powerful.