Does half the US have a personality disorder?

Math, Reading, and Science ranking:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923110.html

It's no big deal, at all - If life means nothing to you.
Hope you reincarnate as that elephant again soon.

Can't blame a society that is taught, governed and educated to triumph in the destruction of everthing it encounters.
Can't teach a door to be a fish.
Elephant, ant, lobster, spider - so what? You eat meat?
Someone killed it.
For you.
Yet... To be triumphant in the midst of killing is sadistic - I am not the judge of others - But they will learn from their actions - Or endure eternity as themselves.

Thanks for the list, but you have to wonder how much the ranks mean in ability, or how much difference there really is between #3 and #42, for instance. I think most advanced countries produce similar percentages of good students, so the differences between rank are not huge.

For instance, if a group of 10 Olympic sprinters visited a high school, and they held a 100 meter sprint for everyone at the school that day, there would be very little difference in the times between #1 and #10, (the Olympic sprinters). You'll start seeing very significant dropoffs in times between #10 and all the other sprinters, who will be the students at the high school. I wonder if that is not similar to the situation of developed countries and educational levels in terms of actual skills taught-the top 50 countries are probably all close to each other in scoring.

I think culture influences its people to achieve in different things. Genes and environment are important to what they achieve in, but that's only my opinion.

I don't know about genes in terms of country to country comparisons. I think that most any developed country has to have mostly Western educational values or they wouldn't be economically developed in the first place. I'm just wondering what the actual test scores are, instead of the rank. I would guess that there isn't that much difference in the test scores for the first two or three dozen countries.

Here's one ranking.
https://iq-research.org/en/page/average-iq-by-country
The top tier are all Asian countries.

Here's an interesting study on income by race in the US.
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-median-income-in-the-us-by-race-2013-9

I don't think IQ is an accurate measurement of actual basic intellect. I think it is culturally biased.

If one group was intellectually superior, then that group would be technologically ahead of all other groups since the beginning of Homo Sapiens 200,000 years ago, or at least since 45,000 years ago when the big push out of Africa commenced. Instead, we see the most technologically advanced places keeps skipping around-first Africa, then the Middle East, Asia, Southern Europe, Northern Europe, even for awhile the Maya. That situation would not have occurred if one group or "race" was truly intellectually superior.

You don't seem to know about world history and cultures.

I think I do. Starting from 45,000 years ago, when the big push out of Africa commenced, the most technologically advanced places on Earth keeps skipping around-it's not just one place the whole time. If one race or population group really was superior, it would be one place.

I would love to see Asians tested for EQ...(Emotional Intelligence)
Tell ya more, I would bet my neck on the results I expect from that...

Are you a racial bigot? I also want all whites tested for EQ, educational equality..

I dont believe in ratial superiority over all but belive different races may be good at different things. I dont do taboo. So take it or ditch it.

Yes, but are different "races", (even the term has begun to be questioned by anthropologists and geneticists because of the close similarity of all people), stronger in different areas because of genes or because of culture? You might make a case that people of West African descent will excel at sports requiring strength because West Africans have a bone density 20% greater than people of European descent, and bone density is linked to muscle strength. African Americans have about 9 or 10% greater. (Note to West Africans and African Americans reading this-don't get cocky. Polynesians, including Samoans, have a greater average bone density than you, that's why so many of them are in the NFL. So there.)

But as far as non-physical things go, do you think that people from different parts of the world have differing abilities that are innate? I think the evidence indicates that the differences are cultural, not genetic.

Both culture playing a big part.
I also believe in cultural Darwinism and cultural dead ends...but the topic is taboo. The role of Philosophy is to openly engage with taboo topics.

If by cultural Darwinism you mean some cultures drive others to extinction, (without necessarily making the people extinct), anyone would agree. If you mean that some cultures are "dead ends", that's hard to say. All cultures come from original cultures that took tens of thousands of years to develop such basic things as the spear thrower and bow and arrow, which allowed them greater food supply and for Homo Sapiens to more than hold their own against Neanderthals and possibly other physically stronger species in Europe and Asia. You don't really know if any culture is a "dead end", it might just be a culture that hasn't hit a certain level of technological progress yet.

I meant that some cultural experiments might demise civilizations, not demise people although the demise of a civilization may have some consequences on the success of some gene pools.

Okay, but what about whether some population groups have significant innate social and intellectual abilities that other groups don't have, that's genetically passed down. Do you believe that? That is outside the physical, which some groups do have an advantage in.

I believe in human ecosystems with social diverse genetic pools. Such diversity is good for society. For instance I believe some professions require less sensible more "autistic" personalities that require you to get the hands dirty like doctors or military. If everybody was super sensible such society couldn't function properly. So this is not a question of being ahead but of being integrated or not.

Okay, but are these traits decided by one's ancestral line? Anybody from any group can be autistic.

The question is whether a person's personality and characteristics is determined by culture or by inherited traits special to some groups.