Relative intelligence of Americans and Europeans

[Joe Chi Minh]

I don't believe it's by any means a straightforward issue.

At the academic level, if the most difficult TV quiz shows are any guide, Americans beat our brightest and best in the UK, hands down. Nevertheless, where politics are concerned, it astonishes me that serious journalists can, in all seriousness, answer the strangest rhetorical questions, so obvious to the rest of the world as to be non-questions, as if disclosing some kind of revelation. Almost certainly, I would think, because of the impact of your political right-wing and its MSM on your political discourse. Not, of course, that the influence of the far right on us in the UK, generally, hasn't been bad.

As for the more advanced and less desperately degenerate countries of Western Europe, it seems probable that their best-educated would be on the same level as the best-educated Americans.

I believe that the general level of education in the USA tended to be lower than in the UK, but 26 years of far-right government here has certainly taken its toll, so that any gap may no longer exist, unless in the other direction. Compared to the rest of the world, including the third world (whose countries tends to have a very high literacy rate), the illiteracy rate of our school-leavers tends to be extremely high.

So, it's not a homogeneous picture, in my view, at all in my view. Some you win, some we do. The more advanced countries of Western Europe would, I believe, score highly on all counts.

But really, the salient point in all of this is that no country's people are potentially more intelligent than their socio-economic counterparts in any other. In fact, in reality, most children in the third world seem to have a literacy rate in the high nineties.

What seems much more significant is the wisdom, the worldly intelligence grounded on more or less sound assumptions, of its leaders, and the culture which produces them.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Not to get too esoteric about the topic, it depends.

Depends upon the amount of information culled from the culture via education, the media, books, etc. that each individual has exposure to and the retention of that information.

Second, it depends upon the demands of the society to USE that information, the purpose of that use, and the frequency. For example you can be incredibly educated, but not demanded to proffer that benefit at your employment, at your home, or in social situations. Therefore, it is not utilized to its fullest potential.

Different countries have different mores as far as expression of intelligence, how much or how little they value (or fear) it.

Therefore, I am not sure about comparing the collective "intelligence" of countries wholesale when each country has its peculiar culture and society and components within that unit.

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. Yes, it's a point I was pondering, though not so much in terms of

like societies, as obtains in the Western world, although, of course, the details of our respective cultures may provide a different slant.

I was reflecting, for example, on the highly specialised, but otherwise limited uses for a highly-developed, analytical intelligence among the Inuit living in their traditional way. But, in fact, I believe I covered this issue when I spoke of potential intelligence.

[annabanana]

2. I'm sure that innate intelligence is the same...

what varies is education and a culture of curiosity.

Or perhaps living closer to your sometimes friends, sometimes enemies, force a populace to pay more attention than our insular selves.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. I agree with all your points.

[Retired AF Dem]

3. I spent 20 years in Europe

to be honest we are about the same. One thing we Americans have all over the Europeans (esp the Germans) is a sense of humor.

[Joe Chi Minh]

12. I'm surprised to read that. The English don't think much of the sense

of humour of the French, but we tend to think highly of our own.

Personally, I find the French to be extremely witty, but the Americans', British and Australians' sense of humour can be brilliant too.

There is a man who was a TV entertainer here in the UK, whose coming out as a homosexual was in the news a lot, partly because he was married, but he was a quite a celebrity, anyway. I'll call him, "Mudgewump".

Two or three years ago, I suppose, the body of a young man, full of cocaine and other drugs, was found by the side of Mudgewump's swimming pool, after a poolside party, the evening before. It appeared he'd been subjected to a violent sexual assault. The culprit has not yet been found, but the police are renewing their investgations, presumably on the basis of new potential evidence. (A strange subject, however indirect to be the subject of humour, but here is an example of the extraordinary imagination, even genius that wits can occasionally produce).

In the meantime, Mudgewump's been to NZ and Australia, I believe, looking for work, but is back here in the UK at present.

The English, however, are playing cricket against the Aussies in Australia at the moment, and the pitch is such that there is very little movement of the ball. It isn't doing anything, i.e. it's likely to go in a straight line without any deviations from bumps on the pitch, etc., thus making it very difficult for the bowlers, but much easier for the batsmen.

One of the England team apparently described the pitch as "Mudgewump", i.e. "It is't doing anything at present and isn't likely to be in the foreseeable future.

Another absolutely brilliant metaphor though has to be your American one, "She had legs that just wouldn't quit".

Which brings me to the Aussies. Aussie blokes have an exceptionally dry sense of humour. So much so it can be a while before you realise the bloke's told a joke, but then you ask yourself, "Can he actually realise how funny that joke he's just said actually was?" From his deadpan expression, it seems so improbable.

Cockney humour is very similar and can be really brilliant. We have here in Europe what we call The European Song Contest. A kind of daft, but light-hearted show, in which up-and-coming pop groups compete usually singing their songs in English or Mid-Atlantic.
We've won once or twice but not for a long time. So the Cockney version of "C'est la vie", is oddly enough another French expression - used in the European Song Contest: "Angleterre.... nul point." (England.... zero points). (The French can be pedantically logical, so I don't think they'd make "point" plural).

But heck, I could go and on. In fact, I think I'm going over old ground with much of this, as it is.

[seabeyond]

4. excellent post. thank you for the reasoning and you didnt have to

gosh..... i love balanced and thought out posts. no one has to win over the other. does no one any good.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Aaah... the meaningless comfort of say-nothing centrism....

[seabeyond]

6. right. or the righteous extremism of winner loser. that is working oh

so well. wink

[BlooInBloo]

11. Sure. That is, naturally, the ONLY alternative.

[seabeyond]

17. meaningless comfort of saying nothing is the ONLY alternative

to win win. rollin eyes...... we can go on like this FOREVER

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. Ah, that telling analytical intelligence prevailing once again!

Woe is me.

[Selatius]

7. The only thing here I find worth comparing is quality of education in each country.

Education standards, number of qualified teachers per student, what percentage of the GDP is devoted to education spending, subsidized or unsubsidized college education, etc. are what I find worthy of comparison. Looking at the numbers, it's safe to say the US could do much better for its children than it has. The other things you mentioned are not really quantifiable, so I don't have much to say on that except everyone's opinion is different and that no one's opinion is anymore valid than any other. To be sure, I never make comparisons based on opinions, and it's foolish to do so. Only numbers could be compared. It is refreshing to study different cultures though.

[Tyo]

18. It's not only the money spent, it's the attitude

As someone who was educated primarily here, but also in Japan, it seems to me that a large and growing number of American parents are supportive of education only to the extent that it reinforces and validates their beliefs and prejudices.

The sciences in particular come under fire because they tend to contradict the literalist Biblical view of history and morality. Sex ed is an issue for obvious reasons, the main one being that it acknowledges that sex exists, while programs that promote understanding and tolerance toward those of different races, cultures and sexual orientations are seen as undermining the parents' efforts to teach exclusion based on these same factors.

Proper funding is vital, but there is more to it than that. I have no idea how we solve the problem, but I think it's getting worse not better.

[Selatius]

20. On the issue of evolution vs. creation, I remain committed to the idea that...

the science laboratory should not be the place to teach any religion. If people want schools to teach creationism, then it should be in the proper context, in the philosophy classroom, not the science lab. The science lab is the realm of empiricism, not belief. It is the realm of the scientific method, not the realm of cherry-picking facts to fit a world view. This may sound harsh if one is a biblicist, but going down the path of blind faith often leads to human misery more than human liberation from ignorance.

The only recourse they leave us is to fight. We must fight against any attempt to surplant scientific reason with dogmatic religious doctrine.

[Zensea]

10. I hope you mean education, not intelligence

Seems you're mixing up the terms.
Talking about the relative intelligence variations between Americans and Europeans is not any less problematic than talking about the intelligence variations between Europeans and Africans, if you catch my drift.

[leftofthedial]

14. naive, ignorant, provincial

are the key failings of most Americans, even many "smart" ones.

[Cleita]

16. I have been amazed at the ignorance of college graduates about

everything except their own field of study. It's really appalling.

[Cleita]

15. I have been impressed that most continental Europeans do

speak one or more languages other than their native tongue and often three or four, something that the average American doesn't. I believe knowing a foreign language gives you a window into another culture and better understanding of your own and your relationship as an American to the rest of the world.

I have met few Scandanavians that didn't not only speak English, but spoke it fluently and grammatically correct for instance.

[Tyo]

19. I've noticed the same thing

About the only difference I could find between our English and Dutch English, for example, was that their grammar was better.