Scott Alexander shares and discusses reader comments on his review of 'How Asia Works', covering various critiques and alternative explanations for Asian economic development. Longer summary

This post highlights comments on Scott Alexander's review of Joe Studwell's book 'How Asia Works'. Commenters discuss various aspects of the book's arguments, including land reform, industrial policy, and financial systems. They bring up counterexamples and alternative explanations for Asian economic development, such as IQ differences and the role of US support. The post also includes data on GDP growth in different Asian countries and discusses the potential for other developing countries to follow similar paths to success. Scott adds his own thoughts and analysis throughout. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that while IQ is valuable for research, it's not reliable for predicting individual success and shouldn't be a major personal concern. Longer summary

Scott Alexander addresses the issue of people becoming overly concerned about their personal IQ scores. He explains that while IQ is a valuable research tool for understanding populations, it's not as useful or reliable for predicting individual outcomes. He points out that IQ tests often give inaccurate results for individuals, and even accurate IQ scores don't determine a person's potential for success. Alexander uses analogies like family wealth to illustrate how statistical correlations don't necessarily apply to individuals. He emphasizes that many factors beyond IQ contribute to success in various fields. The post aims to reassure readers who may be worried about their own IQ scores, while still maintaining the importance of IQ research for understanding broader societal trends. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander debunks a study claiming Victorians were smarter than modern people, showing it's based on flawed data comparison and ignores crucial factors like selection bias and demographics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a study claiming Victorians were more intelligent than modern people based on reaction time measurements. He argues the study's conclusion is flawed due to significant selection bias in the Victorian data, which primarily came from wealthy, educated individuals. The modern data, in contrast, was more representative of the general population. Scott points out that the difference in reaction times can be explained by sampling from the top 20% of Victorian society versus a broader modern sample. He also highlights how the study ignores important factors like race and regional variations in IQ, which could further account for the observed differences. Scott concludes by urging readers not to cite this study as evidence for declining intelligence or civilization. Shorter summary