|Life Expectancy and National IQ
||[Jul. 8th, 2008|04:15 pm]
What should be clear for everybody at this very day is this:
National IQ explains some 50% of variation in GDP between nations and also variation in many other measures of Quality of Life - like litteracy rate and life expectancy at birth.
For low IQ countries - e.g. countries in sub-saharan Africa - the IQ explains even more than 50% of the variance in GDP. The big positive outliers in low IQ countries are only those which have big reserves on gold, oil etc. Like Botswana.
For Life Expectancy National IQ explains even more than 50%:
According to "IQ and Global Inequality" by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen National IQ explains 60-70 % of the variation in Life Expectancy between nations.
Satori Kanazawa has shown controlling of IQ makes factors like GDP to explain nothing of the variance in Life Expectancy.
What then could explain the rest - i.e. the 30-40 % ?
Lynn and Vanhanen shows the biggest negative outliers are some countries in southern Africa having high rates of AIDS like Zimbabwe, Zambia and Botswana and some countries in Asia having a long history of civil wars like Laos, Myanmar and Afghanistan.
But what then explains the high rates of AIDS in Africa?
According to World Health Organisation it is very much probable HIV will never reach high rates outside Africa. For many years WHO speculated on a risk for AIDS epidemy in India, Russia or what ever country. The risk was never materialised. And now even WHO admits the risk will probably never materialise.
How then does WHO explain the lack of AIDS epidemy outside Africa ?
The explanation WHO is giving is the high rate of parallel sexual relationships in Africa - high compared to other geographical areas, In other words married african men and women are frequently having unprotected extramarital sex.
For that WHO gives not a more ultimate explanation. We can probably say "the sexual moral in southern Africa is more "liberal" than outside Africa" but that is really just rewriting of the fact "africans have many parallel sexual relationships".
Is there an ultimate explanation for the more "liberal" moral.
My GUESS is at least a more ultimate explanation can be found in the Rushton's rule of three and what Rushton shows about the racial differences in sex drive.