lihohsin227 wrote:
http://www...(恕刪)
真是瞎扯.
台灣為什麼成功?
外部環境是冷戰的紅利,新加坡 香港 韓國 都是.
內部:
1.蔣介石把帶來的政治紅利.美國為了對抗共產黨,一直援助蔣介石.蔣介石從大陸拿走中央銀行所有的黃金.好東西全部拿來台灣.
2.日本人統治台灣,講台灣做成了一個戰後基地,在台灣初步進行了工業化.台灣比中國大陸總體的工業化程度高.
3.蔣介石帶來了一大批優秀的外省人,這群是中國大陸精英的精英,有大國治理經驗,這群人很多都出國留學,而且有很多的教育傳統,成為台灣80 90年代的發展的人口紅利.張忠謀....
4.中國大陸的閉關鎖國和冷戰對抗,可以保證貿易競爭中,亞洲少了一個最大的競爭對手,這個對手終於用30年的時間緩過勁來了.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/8191.html
* 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.
*數據中有包括上海、浙江、北京、天津和江蘇的12個省市，一共有621所學校、21003名學生參與了測試。上海的數據首先公開，然後是浙江（59所學校、1800名學生參與——80%來自鄉鎮地區）的數據和12省份的平均數據。
(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.
（1）對於學術水平，IQ是個很好的體現，中國的數據對於一個發展中國家而言極其之高。我猜測，這和中國歷史上的傳統以及毛時代經濟的遺產有關。
(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.
（2）12個省市的平均PISA成績為103.0（我知道他們是按照12個省市的人口權重和平均值計算出這個數字的，但也有可能並非如此）。我們知道這12個省份里中的5個（上海，浙江，北京，天津，江蘇），它們在中國屬於發達、高收入地區，並且這5個省市——除了天津——都在一個中國在線IQ測試網站中高於中國的平均值。其中浙江和江蘇在高考中以「高考強省」聞名。
(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.
（3）根據PISA測試結果的中國平均值有偏高的可能。其中至少有三個省份——上海，江蘇和浙江，北京——在中國IQ測試表中名列前茅。因此中國真正的IQ平均值可能會徘徊于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.
（4）上海的分數非常高（111.6），必然與它長期以來作為中國人才精英的匯聚所在有關。對於香港而言（106.9），它的影響力可能稍遜一籌。雖然漢族人與當地人混血，台灣當地人的IQ依然有105.1。新加坡（107.5）也吸引了大量中國精英——而且他們的移民政策也是精英主義的——但另一方面，這個優勢被大量更低IQ的馬來人和印度少數族裔抵消了。儘管澳門是個不應漏過的特例，大部分漢族發達地區的IQ都在105-110的範圍內。在其他東亞地區，如韓國本土人（106.6）以及日本本土人（105.3）。這似乎意味著在中國平均數值和發達的東亞地區之間大概仍有5-10個點的差距（指上文說的中國101左右的平均值）。
(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.
（5）中國和華人聚居地之間的巨大差距或許我們可以用「認知聚類」解釋，那麼差距則可以降到5個點左右。這說明中國的平均數值，根據弗林效應，仍有很高將近5個點的增長潛力。
（譯註：弗林效應（Flynn effect）指智商測試的結果逐年增加的現象。弗林效應是以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）東亞在社會-經濟IQ影響上的特例似乎對羅恩·伍茲的理論造成了挑戰。
As regards Chinese intelligence in global perspective
全球視野下的中國人智力
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.
下面這個表展示了發達國家大體的數據，也就是中國正在努力成為的地區；以及正在崛起的地區（金磚四國以及東南亞）與中國數據作個對比。
(1) Assuming that average Chinese IQ is now 101-102:
（1）假設中國的平均IQ現在是101-102之間：
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).
換言之中國目前的IQ水平和德國（101.5）水平相當（東亞地區往往在數學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.
目前而言，這個數字依然低於那些發達的東亞國家的水平，比如韓國，日本，或其他華人聚居地。也比澳大利亞，加拿大，本土德國人和白人美國人相比較低；大約和本土英國人和法國人相當。
It is head and shoulders above other SE Asian 「tigers」 whose average IQ』s are in the high 80′s (Thailand, Malaysia) or low 80′s (Indonesia).
中國和其他東南亞國家的差距就像是頭和肩膀，他們的分數大部分在85+左右（泰國，馬來西亞）和80+（印度尼西亞）。
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.
金磚四國里，中國的分數也比俄羅斯（95.3）明顯要高，和巴西（85.2）比則是大幅領先。至於印度，PISA在它的兩個富裕省份得出的結果平均為75.4，我說了很多次，這根本沒有可比性。
(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.
（2）不必說，這是一個絕好成績，保證了中國可能在合理的時間內發展到發達國家水平。更好的發展會對IQ發展形成正面回報，而IQ高則會推動社會經濟發展，在這種循環中中國會慢慢達到它的「天花板」大約為105-108。這將會進一步提升中國勞動力的技能水平，產生更高的生產力。
Addendum 8/15:
附言8/15：
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.
留言者jing慷慨的提供了所有中國12省份在2009年PISA測試的列表。它們是：天津，上海，北京，江蘇，浙江，吉林，湖北，河北，海南，四川，雲南，寧夏。
省份/人口/人均名義GDP（百萬美元）/
天津 / 12.9 / 13058
上海 / 23 / 12783
北京 / 19.6 / 12456
江蘇 / 78.7 / 9545
浙江 / 54.4 / 9083
吉林 / 27.5 / 5933
湖北 / 57.2 / 5434
中國平均 / 5432
河北 / 71.9 / 5198
海南 / 8.7 / 4459
四川 / 80.4 / 4046
雲南 / 46 / 2935
寧夏 / 6.2 / 5015
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.
這足以得出一個有趣的結論。不管怎麼從人口調整省份的IQ成績，12個省份之間、以及和中國平均水平間的差距也就在0.5點上下。這說明PISA選擇的樣本是非常好的——中國的平均PISA IQ水平差不多是102.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------
