Guy White recently asked why East Asians, though their average IQ is higher than European Caucasians (105 IQ to 100 IQ), are not as inventive, creative, or as historically accomplished as European Caucasians. The evidence is staggering considering Charles Murray’s book, Human Accomplishment. Responders have presented two answers: (1) East Asians exhibit as a group a smaller variance in IQ than Caucasians; (2) they exhibit a lower ceiling in IQ—i.e., they might peak at, say, a 145 IQ, while Caucasians might peak at, say, a 165 IQ.
I don’t know of any data corroborating the second statement; it seems highly unlikely, so I won’t discuss it further. There is, however, good data contradicting the first statement. Steve Hsu at InfoProc shows that East Asian IQ variance is virtually the same as the Caucasian IQ variance. Also, I noticed that Asians exhibit a slightly greater variance than Caucasians for the LSAT.
So is there a viable answer to White’s question? I think so, and it involves the difference in cognitive profiles between East Asians and Caucasians. Simply put, the answer to White’s question involves verbal IQ and its relation to creativity, inventiveness, or accomplishment.
Notice that many of the disciplines are in the humanities, which requires great verbal ability. Yet, it is also the case that great verbal ability is important for accomplishment in science and mathematics. Grady Towers explains that there is an optimum verbal IQ that contributes to creative accomplishment:
. . .Doctor Anne Roe, whose study in the 1950’s of 64 of America’s most eminent scientists and scholars remains perhaps the most important study of creativity ever made. Being the wife of Doctor Gaylord Simpson, the widely respected paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, gave her access to the kind of proven creative performer that few researchers have ever had. At least one of her sample had won the Nobel prize, and, without doubt, all of them were world-class achievers in their various fields.
Doctor Roe made a very detailed study of each of these men from a wide variety of scientific and scholarly fields. Her sample included physicists, chemists, biochemists, geneticists, psychologists, anthropologists and others. She obtained detailed personal histories, examined family backgrounds, educational records, marriages and so on. She also examined their emotional lives through Rorschach tests and other methods. Included in her mental examination were three IQ tests: a verbal, a spatial, and a mathematical test. As the intelligence of these men went through the ceilings of ordinary IQ tests, Doctor Roe had the Educational Testing Service, the developers of the SAT, construct especially difficult tests for her subjects. The IQ equivalent earned by her subjects on the verbal test—the test which is probably the closest equivalent to a conventional IQ test—was a median of 166, a score that is about the same as that earned by the average member of the Prometheus Society.
Creativity research has produced some of the most defective studies in psychometric literature. Tests were constructed that purported to measure this elusive quality, but turned out to have no correlation with real-world achievement in any field. Subjects were often school children, sometimes elementary-school children, as though the “creativity” of a ten-year-old could be compared to that of a Newton or a Goethe. Claims about the relationship between IQ and creativity were often based on mixtures of tests that measured different functions, had inadequate ceilings, and were of uneven reliability, rather than being based on the results from one good test. But the biggest flaw in these research designs was that the creativity being studied often wasn’t creativity at all, in any meaningful sense. Finding a hundred uses for a brick is in no way comparable to discovering a new scientific principle, or inventing a new experiment. Doctor Roe’s research avoided all of those pitfalls. There is absolutely no question about her subjects’ intelligence, or their creativity. And although their verbal IQs ranged from 121 to 177, only six of her 64 subjects scored below 148. There is simply no question that creativity at the very highest levels, in the most intellectually demanding fields, is heavily dependent on the same kinds of abilities as those sampled by verbal IQ tests. . . .
I found a chart with the range of IQ scores of Roe’s eminent scientists:
| Original IQ Scores: | Flynn Effect Corrected Scores: | |||||
| Low | Median | High | Low | Median | High | |
| verbal | 121 | 166 | 177 | 105 | 150 | 161 |
| spatial | 123 | 137 | 164 | 107 | 121 | 148 |
| math | 128 | 154 | 194 | 112 | 138 | 178 |
| averages | 124 | 152 | 178 | 108 | 136 | 162 |
Roe’s eminent scientists are categorized in three groups: biologists, physical scientists, and social scientists. P. E. Vernon says the following about them:
. . .Theoretical physicists were much higher than experimental ones in verbal ability, with biologists and social scientists intermediate. All physicists were high on spatial ability, biologists and anthropologists rather low. . . .
The physical scientists were exempted from the math test. Thus, the average math IQ would be even higher if they were included. Obviously, one must be extremely good at mathematics to be accomplished in science. However, notice that spatial ability isn’t as important for eminence as verbal ability. the verbal IQ is much higher than the spatial IQ. I think this is why Ashkenazic Jews are over-represented in theoretical physics and mathematics, even though these disciplines require very good spatial ability; the Ashkenazic cognitive profile tilts towards verbal ability.
I, therefore, propose the following hypothesis. Creative accomplishment and eminence in the humanities and sciences requires good spatial ability (though less so for the humanities), but it also requires even better verbal ability. The East Asian cognitive profile tilts toward spatial ability, and they are known to be generally weak in verbal ability. However, the European Caucasian cognitive profile is evenly balanced between verbal and spatial ability—the best of both—so they are likelier to have more in their population reaching the optimal verbal IQ required for eminence.
bgc
29 June 2009
The best discussion I have seen relevant to this phenomenon was Genius by Hans J Eysenck (the great psychologist).
He says that very high IQ is necessary for genius, but also creativity – which he describes as being related to moderately high levels of the personality trait Psychoticism.
Genius is a very rare combination of very high IQ with moderately high Psychoticism (plus some other things like ego strength and luck).
In effect, the creative person has a widely associative mode of thinking that is part-way towards actual psychoticism. Trait Psychoticism is higher in men, and (IMHO) almost certainly *low* in East Asians (judging by the extremely pro-social social behaviours of East Asian societies and East Asian migrants to other countries).
So there are many highly intelligent East Asians, but creativity is rarer than among Europeans – hence EA genius is even rarer than European genius.
You can find some references and discussion in a recent article of mine:
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-are-modern-scientists-so-dull.html
Lover of Wisdom
29 June 2009
Thanks for the link, bgc. I believe that many things, cognitive profile, personality traits, and culture included, contribute to the true, remarkable, accomplishment. I’m going to take a look at your article.
OneSTDV
1 July 2009
Great post.
I’ll add another possible reason to all of yours. Asians tend to exhibit less aggressive behavior and their culture is highly traditional. Many scientific breakthroughs replace old methods or theories; thereby new discoveries often invite skepticism and could be considered iconoclastic.
The typical Asian might be unwilling to propose some radical theory in order to avoid negative attention and criticism. Further, he might unwilling to adopt new strategies because he’s been normed to follow traditional customs.
For an example, take Einstein and relativity. His theory displaces 250 years of classical mechanics and the most brilliant man ever, Newton. He was called a heretic and many rejected his theory offhand (until Arthur Eddington’s(?) empirical observations). A passive Asian male might try to shirk this type of reaction.
Lover of Wisdom
1 July 2009
Your right, OneSTDV. Einstein is one good example of all three ideas. He was certainly a person who exhibited some psychoticism, who was thus iconoclastic, and an Ashkenazi Jew—he had a very high verbal IQ.
Also, Newton exhibited the same traits 250 years earlier.
Sparkout
23 August 2009
Sixty-four seems a small sample, and imho can afford only a tentative theory. Are there any suggestions as to why verbal proficiency might be essential to pre-eminence in physics? And are you not ignoring the enormously stifling effects of conformism and conservatism in all Confucian societies, lack of social mobility and the oppressive weight of the extended family? Now that China is changing fast, and Western cultural standards are starting to be adopted there, we may see a change in the value put on individuality, creativity and innovation.
Yow
16 July 2010
Creativity, if you think about it, is only for the able minded–usually, it takes years to foment a single idea into something that’s coherent and acceptable as fact. Unless you’re a genius, I doubt you will ever find the solution to the questions that have puzzled Ph.D.s and flummox think tanks (yes, it takes a lot of creativity to find answers to difficult questions). If you can be creative and find a solution to how to making a better umbrella, it just takes some common sense. So, I think some people here are missing the point and fail to see beyond their own purview (hint, hint “Sparkout”).
khongbox
28 July 2010
Hi! I am Chinese (from Singapore, not China). I find this article & the discussion by posters here very well analyzed & thought provoking. I have a question though, which is: Why would verbal intelligence be important in scientific discoveries? Certainly a new discovery when discovered could easily be explained by the inventor in words & expressions that are not as demanding as poetry would? The only thing I could think of is maybe high verbal intelligence also implies high level of creativity which may be important in science and which is otherwise something hard to measure?
The other things that came to my mind about the lack of East Asian Nobel laurettes is this…Nobel Prize is created by the west so naturally most of the winners would be biased towards western achievements. To illustrate this, a search for the similar, “Japan Prize” at wikipedia reveals over-represented japanese laurettes.
The last thing i thought about is this: While in ancient wealthy china, there is a huge list of wide ranged discoveries/technological inventions by the independent chinese (check wikipedia), it is still a fact that collectively today, the bulk of human inventions/discoveries (in terms of numbers) came from the recent west. I thought this might be due to 2 reasons: 1) scientific advancement may be an exponential phenomenon, for example, it take a long time for Man to discover the compass for navigation, but once more related instruments are invented thru time, it becomes relatively easier & faster to invent the more impressive invention called aeroplane that requires all these instruments put together, helped by the western scientific culture that build on sharing existing inventions. Similarly, it takes a long time to realize the earth isn’t flat, but later on with all the scientific instruments/theories invented, it becomes very much easier to discover far more impressive stuff like Black hole etc. Electronics advancement for example, is expanding at exponential rate for the same reason. 2) These recent (hundreds of years ago) spurt in this exponential scientific advancement happens to coincide at a time when the west is now the wealthiest on earth dominating the world. As such, it is therefore not too surprising that great western scientists were nurtured during favourable living conditions. I m not so sure of the validity of my ideas though, but they are just my 2 cents, on top of what has already been said by others here.
khongbox
28 July 2010
Actually the more I think about it, the more I am beginning to believe high verbal IQ isn’t the reason why the west has by now more scientific inventions than east asia. There are 2 reasons:
1) During Ancient Chinese flourishing times when the Chinese invented so many things, the white europeans were already existing then (of course). Yet with their higher verbal IQ then (and still is now), the europeans were NOT the one who created the compass, the wheel barrow, the gunpowder, fermentation, cast iron etc etc, all accomplished by China at that time. In fact wiki noted that the chinese technology was a hundred years ahead of that of europeans in ancient times. This shows that other reasons are more important for scientific advancement which may have little or nothing to do with verbal intelligence.
2) Maths, to me is the extreme end of the spectrum for logic and non-verbal IQ. Its accomplishment depends very much on non-verbal IQ alone and not verbal intelligence nor creativity since it is thru adding numbers logically that new formulae are invented. Yet despite this requirement for high non-verbal IQ instead of verbal IQ or creativity, which fits the east asian’s profile, yet the most accomplished mathematicians today we see are still surprisingly largely NOT east asians but europeans. This shows that high verbal IQ cannot be the reason why whites dominates even maths (which requires little verbal intelligence & creativity) today. There must be other reassons.
khongbox
28 July 2010
Actually the more I think about it, the more I am beginning to believe high verbal IQ isn’t the reason why the west has by now more scientific inventions than east asia. There are 2 reasons:
1) During Ancient Chinese flourishing times when the Chinese invented so many things, the white europeans were already existing then (of course). Yet with their higher verbal IQ then (and still is now), the europeans were NOT the one who created the compass, the wheel barrow, the gunpowder, fermentation, cast iron etc etc, all accomplished by China at that time. In fact wiki noted that the chinese technology was a hundred years ahead of that of europeans in ancient times. This shows that other reasons are more important for scientific advancement which may have little or nothing to do with verbal intelligence.
2) Maths, to me is the extreme end of the spectrum for logic and non-verbal IQ. Its accomplishment depends very much on non-verbal IQ alone and not verbal intelligence nor creativity since it is thru adding numbers logically that new formulae are invented. Yet despite this requirement for high non-verbal IQ instead of verbal IQ or creativity, which fits the east asian’s profile, yet the most accomplished mathematicians today we see are still surprisingly largely NOT east asians but europeans. This shows that high verbal IQ cannot be the reason why whites dominates even maths (which requires little verbal intelligence & creativity) today. There must be other reasons.
Lover of Wisdom
28 July 2010
Let me address your first comment, Khongbox. Some people have misconceptions about “verbal” ability. They usually think it only involves the ability to play on words (like in poetry), but it really is being able to educe relations (like analogies or pattern recognition) from concepts portrayed in words. Verbal ability is very important in theoretical physics, pure mathematics, and economics. Indeed, Ashkenazi Jews, who have low spatial ability but very high verbal ability, are overrepresented in these fields. However, you will more often find high spatial ability Asians in experimental physics and applied mathematics. They like to apply mathematical concepts to physical phenomena instead of trying to represent through symbolism, like the pure fields.
Asians have won the Nobel prize, but not as many as one might hope for. I wouldn’t say there is a bias against Asians, just like there isn’t a bias against Africans. But I suspect that the Nobel prize in physics and Economics are bias towards results that are proven over years in the theoretical area, not the applied. The Fields Medal (the most prestigious award in mathematics) is only for pure mathematics.
I’d say you are right about the exponential growth of scientific discoveries. I think, like the comments above say, that all sorts of factors come into play: verbal ability, culture, group personality traits, and so on.
khongbox
28 July 2010
Hi Lover of wisdom, you are indeed right to point out that I have misunderstood the meaning of verbal intelligence. Now that you mentioned, I can indeed recall some online IQ tests that I have done before, that use verbal tests to indeed mainly test for the ability to see relationships in a logical manner. However, this lead me to question whether indeed East Asians are poor at the cognitive ability that verbal tests r trying to test. I m skeptical because of 4 reasons:
1) a search on wiki on “verbal intelligence” revealed that some experts think that non verbal methods of testing what verbal tests are testing are more precise. This shows that verbal tests are indeed merely testing what spatial or even mathematical test are already testing, which means that rather than verbal test being a unique test, they may be in fact be duplicates of what spatial tests are testing, which also means if fairly designed, an individual shoud also have high verbal scores if he has high spatial score. As an example a verbal test question that asks, “keyhole is to key is the same as candle holder is to what?” would in fact be testing the same cognitive ability as a spatial test that has a picture of key, keyhole, candle holder n candle shapes. In fact, as an evidence that verbal tests are not indispensable, I know from the MENSA Singapore website that the IQ test does NOT contain verbal test (though I also know through YouTube that this is not the case for MENSA USA). I therefore am skeptical that East Asians are poor in verbal IQ test though they may seem to be in practice for the following reasons:
2)Verbal IQ test may be biased towards the west. I have personally done online IQ tests and found the verbal tests the most difficult for me NOT because I m poor at logic nor relationships between things, but because at many times, there r words used that I have not come across before (despite being proficient in English, some words are just not commonly used in Singapore where people do speak English). So obviously when I can’t understand the meaning of keywords in the test, I will not score for those questions.
3) There are frequently in verbal tests, names of philosophers/scientists that I have never come across for cultural reasons, despite being proficient in English. I encountered such cases in verbal test which again I therefore cannot answer correctly NOT because I am poor in relating objects logically. For example, I would have got it right if “Lao Tze” was used instead of “Aristotle”.
4) Finally one must also consider which is the best language to use for IQ test for testing non-native speakers. This to me however is the least important because I believe such consideration is taken care of.
I therefore want to know if there are indeed sufficient evidence that proves East Asians have lower verbal intelligence. I shall consider evidence only if they carry the same weight as the likes of Murray or Richard Lynn whose evidences are good enough to be reported at Wikipedia and the likes. Do you have any references for me?
Lover of Wisdom
30 July 2010
Let me address your points backwards.
(4) You are right, considerations are taken care of. Non-native speakers will usually be tested with Fluid or “culture-fair” tests. No verbal measure is be used.
(3) Again with (4), crystalized/verbal tests are really applicable when the tester is native to that culture.
(2) A verbal IQ tests can be administered to anyone as long as the tester is native to that culture. So a verbal test could be done in Chinese, which would be fairer to native Chinese speakers, while a test in English would be fairer to native English speakers. However, tests with verbal components do show that Asian Americans, for example, native to American culture, proficient in English, score lower than Caucasians or Ashkenazi Jews. See next point.
(1) To start off, you can see results directly from GRE scores. These are cognitive tests for entrance into graduate school. There are similar results with SAT scores, which I’ve seen but can’t find at the moment. I post a chart in the meantime. By the way you might find the wiki article interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SAT-verbal-by-race-ethnicity.png
And this piece from La Griffe: http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2.htm
He is a famous researcher that uses this moniker for online anonymity.
I’ll post some more things when I get the chance. By the way, both Murray and Lynn are well versed in, and accept that Asian verbal ability is lower than some other races. The Asian strength is in visual-spatial ability.
John Smith
5 October 2010
Khongbox has won the argument with his exponential rate of progress argument. It is dumb to suggest otherwise. Well done khongbox for delivering a K.O. You have certainly proved incredible verbal intelligence to fathom such a deep insight. Be courteous and accept defeat lover of wisdom.
Nope
10 March 2011
khongbox may have best intentions with his remarks, but the testing “bias” card doesn’t hold water, when native English speaking self-identifying Asian Americans are scoring lower than their White counterparts year after year in verbal reasoning. Also, I see time and time again Asians making excuses like “technological flurry” and “usage of slave labor” as reasons the West has dominated technology, science and culture for the last myriad of centuries. Those are just that, excuses.
The bottom line is, as has been noted by Lover of Wisdom, Asians do not have the verbal ability their White counterparts have. Spatial ability and IQ alone doesn’t cut it in the world of standardized testing, as evidenced by the lower than expected scores of Asians across the wide range of ACT/SAT/LSAT spectrum. When you can point to evidence relating to anything other than genetics, feel free to come back and create a new, more cogent argument.
TK
24 June 2011
1. Jews have a high spatial IQ than whites.
2. Spatial IQ is innate. On the other hand, verbal IQ is due to the education and experience. In other words, while verbal IQ can be developed by receiving a lot of learning, development of spatial iq is impossible. Therefore, no wonder the verbal IQ of famous scholars is higher than their spatial IQ because they are studying steadily. And then you should know the fact that spatial IQ of renowned scholars is very high compared with the general public.
3. Do you know the Raven’s test? The Raven’s test is very famous IQ test for checking creativity. It measures only spatial ability because spatial ability is soon creativity and abstract thinking skill.
In conclusion, spatial iq is very important because it is innate and correlated to creativity.
nuality
30 September 2011
It is a mistake. Europe had a head start in development( due to the industrial revolution), and East Asia was only playing catch up in the last 100 years. East Asia was once the most technological society in the world. They invented things that were ahead of Europe, and was latter copy by Europeans. Europe was really primitive 500 years ago compare to China at that time. Europeans advanced, and their economy diverges in the industrial revolution. Europe start colonizing, and thus, making it even more harder for countries like China to develop its economy, and human capitals.
As to the Nobel prize, east Asians simply are not in the competition. Most Nobel prize winners come from stable, prosperous society, but much of Japan, Korea, and China was in poverty, civil war, and colonization for the last 500 years. They simply do not have the opportunity to develop their human capital. Developing human capital takes time, stable economy which Asia did not have.
Amused
1 December 2011
Nuality, why do your little sob story begin from 500 years ago?
How come Europe had a ‘head start’ to begin with? Is East Asians are more creative/intelligent, shouldn’t European Civilization/Western Civilization be playing catch up with East Asia and not vice versa?
As for what East Asia invented and so forth, it’s certainly true that some specific inventions were invented long before they were in Europe – like gun powder.
On the other hand, the Algebra that was created out of nothing in Ancient Greece was more advanced than anything the Chinese used for over 1800 years, especially in trigonometry. So ask yourself, what is more important? Specific inventions like gun powder or the entire fields of mathematics, science and literature?
It’s not a conincidence that Western civilization rose while East Asia has lagged behind ever since.
Granted, in the age of mass immigration, The West will likely experienced farily profound declines. That is a process which will take decades. And by that time, climate change will either have made civilization impossible – of any kind – or we will transcend it through nanotechnology etc.
Anonymous
19 December 2011
Amused, you are so narrow-minded to attack nuality that way. You only care about your Eurocentric world view of things. It seems no matter what, if youre not White, you simply cant win.
Reveillon
22 February 2012
Page 301 – 303, ‘Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud’: “These various aspects of Chinese language and script have had a major influence on Chinese thought. There is not only the pictorial quality of the characters themselves, but the various tones in which words are pronounced, which in particular, for example, give Chinese poetry added elements or dimensions that are quite lacking in Western languages. ‘Movement’, for example, is rendered in Chinese as ‘advance-retreat’, and ‘politics’ as ‘rule-chaos’. The experience of Chinese is, in some circumstances, quite different from other languages, often reflecting the Confucian idea of antonyms, ying/yang. To give another example, ‘Mountain big’ is a complete sentence in Chinese. It is not necessary to use the verb ‘to be’. ‘Without the subject-predicate pattern of sentence structure,’ says Zhou Youguang, ‘the Chinese did not develop the idea of the law of identity in logic or the concept of substance in philosophy. And without these concepts, there could be no idea of causality or science. Instead, the Chinese develop[ed] correlational logic, analogical thought, and relational thinking, which, though appropriate to science, are highly useful in socio-political theory. That is why the bulk of Chinese philosophy is philosophy of life.’”
Anosh
12 June 2012
Amused, what the hell are you talking about? Greece didn’t create mathematics from nothing. Almost ALL of their theoritical advances of Mesopotamian (Assyrian and Babylonian) in origin. This can be proven by looking at the records of ancient tablets that have been recovered in ancient sites. Before 1200 BC, the Greeks were barbarian tribes. In 2000 BC in Mesopotamia, however, math was a fully mature subject and the Mesopotamians not only had algebraic advances, but geometrical ones as well. You’ll be surprised to know that even when Greece was ruling in 300 BC onwards, some of the most significant people there were of Babylonian origin. Not one book credits the Babylonians for anything. All credit is given to Greece. You should read your history right.
Mike Yang
26 June 2012
Amused, your provincial comments are amusing. White Europeans of antiquity, your beloved
Greeks and Romans, had no idea of the concept of 0 nor negative numbers. Their system of math would have left your continent in the dark ages had they not imported concepts of 0 and negative numbers from the Arabs who got them from India, not to mention the base 10 system, Try multiplying 154 x 143 in Roman numerals and see how long it takes you.
Algebra invented by the Greeks? Hardly. Without the Babylonians or Brahmagupta of India, where would the Greeks be? Also, I have no doubt both Newton and Leibniz used knowledge from Indian mathematicians to help unify the field now known as calculus.
This is the theme of Europe: It was helped immensely by the knowledge of the middle east, south asia, east asia, and egypt.
Also, let’s not forget the northern and western europeans did jack sh-t from most of human civilization; only contributing the past 200-300 years.
And Jews? For most of their lives, their greatest mathematical contribution was numerology. Yes, the astrology of the mathematical world. They too only started contributing to knowledge with the rise of Europe in the past 200-300 years.
Mike Yang
26 June 2012
I must say, that was the error of other cultures. While Europeans viewed themselves as barbarians in the past and soaked up knowledge from the East, Asians thought of themselves as being the center and did not care to explore and learn from the rest of the world. China famously closed it’s borders and looked towards itself for wisdom. This has changed now. Now, both India and China have accepted their secondary state and are looking to learn from the West while adding their own homespun wisdom to the mix. Barring some kind of cataclysmic end, the East will usurp the West and that lead will be never ending.
Mike Yang
26 June 2012
To the moderator of this blog, show me SAT verbal results of Asians adopted by whites. If their verbal scores are lower than their peers, you would be onto something.
I myself don’t buy it at all. Asian-Americans are still influenced by their traditional immigrant parents and so their language abilities might not be as good as white kids who grow up with parents who are well versed in English. I learned Chinglish as a child.
miguelmadeira
26 June 2012
I this kind of discussions, it is good to remeber that, in IQ tests, arithmetical/numerical reasoning is included in verbal IQ subscale, not in the spatial IQ subscale.
miguelmadeira
26 June 2012
A better title for this post should be “East Asian accomplishment (or lack thereof?)”.
After all, the supposed high IQ group are the East Asians, while most examples that keeps poping in the discussion about scientific contributions from Asians are from Middle Easterners and Indians.
Sam59
27 June 2012
I doubt there is too much difference between the races other than external appearance. Most of these differences probably can be attributed to cultural.
nuality
28 June 2012
No, Sam59,
Han Chinese, and it cultural sphere have the highest IQ.
nuality
28 June 2012
“uality, why do your little sob story begin from 500 years ago?
How come Europe had a ‘head start’ to begin with? Is East Asians are more creative/intelligent, shouldn’t European Civilization/Western Civilization be playing catch up with East Asia and not vice versa?
As for what East Asia invented and so forth, it’s certainly true that some specific inventions were invented long before they were in Europe – like gun powder.
On the other hand, the Algebra that was created out of nothing in Ancient Greece was more advanced than anything the Chinese used for over 1800 years, especially in trigonometry. So ask yourself, what is more important? Specific inventions like gun powder or the entire fields of mathematics, science and literature?
It’s not a conincidence that Western civilization rose while East Asia has lagged behind ever since.
Granted, in the age of mass immigration, The West will likely experienced farily profound declines. That is a process which will take decades. And by that time, climate change will either have made civilization impossible – of any kind – or we will transcend it through nanotechnology etc.”
It is not just gun powder, you retard. China were technologically, culturally way ahead of the rest of the planet. Europe was not even in competition. China was better from tech, music, art, literature, economy, and government. Rome was no match for China, nor was any western state. Know your place in history.
nuality
28 June 2012
I have to correct people. Europe only surpass China in the 1800, after 50 years into the industrial revolution. Anglo-saxons have always be a monkey race, look down by by the Greek, and Romans. Boy, are they the most cocky sons of bitches..lol
miguelmadeira
29 June 2012
Where were the Chinese Thales, Pitagoras, Archimedes, Euclides, Socrates, Plato, Aristotles, Ptolomeu, Da Vinci, Copernicus, Galileu, Newton, Leibniz, Kepler, Lavoisier, Priestley, Cavendish, Euler, etc.
Thinking in famous Chinese thinkers, scientists, etc (and restricing the range to before 1800), I only can think of 2 names: Confuncios and Liu Hui.
China, during much of his History, seems very similar to Roman Empire – an high technology (compared with other people of the time), but largley static, specially in terms of abstract science.
nuality
29 June 2012
“Where were the Chinese Thales, Pitagoras, Archimedes, Euclides, Socrates, Plato, Aristotles, Ptolomeu, Da Vinci, Copernicus, Galileu, Newton, Leibniz, Kepler, Lavoisier, Priestley, Cavendish, Euler, etc.”
First of all, ancient Chinese beat the ancient Greek in producing Philosophy. It is just a fact.
After 1700, some of these scientists you named like Euler etc only are possible by a change in Europe incentive structures that reward these type of thinking at that time. This is also only possible when Europe discovery North America.
“Thinking in famous Chinese thinkers, scientists, etc (and restricing the range to before 1800), I only can think of 2 names: Confuncios and Liu Hui.”
There is actually a lot Chinese philosophers, and great thinkers. I can name some if you wish. As for inventions, economic prosperity, governmental understanding etc.. all most every area, the China were at the top compare to every near east, and western civilization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions
“China, during much of his History, seems very similar to Roman Empire – an high technology (compared with other people of the time), but largley static, specially in terms of abstract science”
This is pathetic, China way ahead of the Rome, and Greek in almost every area except “rationalistic” philosophy, and “axiomatic” math. And to be honest, the west do have a lot of help from the near east, and our turkic, mongol kin.
Let us cut off the bullshit. The west, particularly the Anglo-Saxon race was always a primitive race. Is it not a bit surprising that these people could dominate the world from 1800 onward? Why? The obvious answer was the industrial revolution in 1750.
nuality
29 June 2012
White people need to be nuked
nuality
29 June 2012
The presupposition that East Asians were less invention is as a mistake. The compilation of human achieve is biased in favor of western scientists, and artists. The bias is only possible because by ignoring, or valuing less Chinese achievements. Chinese literature, art, and music are the superior of the west, and everywhere else for the last 3000 years. From technology, to government, the Chinese were more advanced, and sophisticated than the west, middle east, and India. The only reason the west was able to jump beyond China was the discovery of N America, and this changed the incentive structure allow industrial revolution to happen. This a lot the smartest of Anglo Saxons to benefit their people.
The genetic do not lie. All those intel competitions, math olympaid, and science olympaid are won by Chinese, or other east Asians. If not for racist policies, Harvard would be 80% east Asian. Berkeley, UCLA engineering, and business are 50% Asian. All the countries Singapore, HK+Taiwan+ China are Chinese countries are better economies, because they are superior people. The Koreans, and Japanese being the carry of Chinese culture also benefit from the IQ boost, and have superior economies.
Anglo Saxon were never smart race. Romans look down on the primitive state of these people.
What conclusion can we draw? The Anglo Saxon dominance is an accident because of the industrial revolution in 1750.
Reveillon
20 July 2012
This is my second post.
It takes a planet, obviously. Individuals consider everything differently, and this is mostly beneficial; everyone is needed. Each culture provides different necessary elements (life mastering every niche: “Life as an Agent of Energy Disperal” by Scott D Sampson). Myths (as a product of environment) provide a summarization of thinking (and are still relevant); including approaches to solving problems, etc. This unity is probably why cultures within Europe transmitted and applied knowledge so much more effectively between themselves than externally (i.e., this may be the reason for the success of the European Renaissance, especially in comparison to the Western ontologies furthered by the Arabs before the success of Islam). You might do well to read Ian Morris PDF on Social Development, where he details the history of energy usage in the “West” and in the “East”. http://www.ianmorris.org/docs/social-development.pdf
However, in reply:
“Two of the dynamics that animate human accomplishment are what I call purpose and autonomy…[…]…Here’s my proposition regarding purpose: ‘A major stream of human accomplishment is fostered by a culture in which the most talented people believe that life has a purpose and that the function of life is to fulfill that purpose.’ And here’s my proposition regarding autonomy: ‘A major stream of human accomplishment is fostered by a culture that encourages the belief that individuals can act efficaciously as individuals, and enables them to do so.’” http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/libertarian-looks-human-accomplishment-arts-sciences
Leukippos, Democritus: Atomism, where nothingness and void even then suggest “zero” and “negative”, conceptually. Theophrastus: “Both matter and void have real existence. The constituents of matter are elements infinite in number and always in motion, with an infinite variety of shapes, completely solid in composition.” It is at least a start.
Diophantus, Hypatia: primitive algebra.
Not entirely void of zeros: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals#Hellenistic_zero
A fluidity of thought:
“Now here is something we must not think probable,
Since space is infinite on every side,
Since atoms numberless throughout the mighty universe
Fly here and there, by motion everlasting e’er implied,
That this one world of ours, this earth and sky
Alone were brought to birth.
We cannot cherish this belief—-
Beyond the confines of this world we know,
Nature does nothing.
Particularly as the world we know
Was made by Nature thus:
The atoms of their own accord
Jostled from time to time by chance,
In random fashion, clashed, and blindly heedlessly
And oft in vain,
Until at last were unions suddenly achieved
To be the starting points of mighty things,
Of earth and sea and sky, of every living thing.
And so I say again, again you must confess
That somewhere in the universe
Are other meetings of the atom stuff resembling this of
ours;
And these the aether holds in greedy grip.
For when the atom stuff is there,
And space in which the atom stuff may move,
And neither thing nor cause to bring delay,
The process of creation must go on; things must be made.
Now as it is,
If atom stocks are inexhaustible,
Greater than power of living things to count,
If Nature’s same creative power were present too
To throw the atoms into unions- exactly as united now,
Why then confess you must
That other worlds exist in other regions of the sky,
And different tribes of men, kinds of wild beasts.
This further argument occurs:
Nothing in nature is produced alone;
Nothing is born unique, or grows unique, alone.
Each thing is always specimen- of race or kind or class,
And many specimens belong to each.
For think of living things:
The race of roving beasts that roam the hills,
The stock of human kind,
The voiceless herds of scaly fish
And every winged thing.
All these are born as specimens, each of a class.
And so you must confess
That sky and earth and sun and all that comes to be
are not unique but rather countless examples of a class.
For these are,too, of mortal body born,
The deep-set boundary stone of life awaits these too,
As much as every human body here on earth.
As much as every class of things.
Abounding in examples, kind by kind.”
De Rerum Natura, Book II, Lucretius (99 BC – 55 BC), trans. Alban Dewes Winspear
There has been much mixing between European populations.
Oxford University wasn’t founded during the Renaissance.
The Norse colonization of the Americas.
Further: the Byzantines (and the advances in architecture, warfare (“napalm”), and mechanical devices); the Viking Varangian Guard were the personal bodyguards of the Byzantine Emperor.
There is a long history of inter-mingling within the West, from before the Golden age of the Ancient Greeks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_inventions Let’s count the listed Western inventions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prolific_inventors
Let’s count the listed Western inventors.
Please do not ignore this quote: Page 301 – 303, ‘Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud’: “These various aspects of Chinese language and script have had a major influence on Chinese thought. There is not only the pictorial quality of the characters themselves, but the various tones in which words are pronounced, which in particular, for example, give Chinese poetry added elements or dimensions that are quite lacking in Western languages. ‘Movement’, for example, is rendered in Chinese as ‘advance-retreat’, and ‘politics’ as ‘rule-chaos’. The experience of Chinese is, in some circumstances, quite different from other languages, often reflecting the Confucian idea of antonyms, ying/yang. To give another example, ‘Mountain big’ is a complete sentence in Chinese. It is not necessary to use the verb ‘to be’. ‘Without the subject-predicate pattern of sentence structure,’ says Zhou Youguang, ‘the Chinese did not develop the idea of the law of identity in logic or the concept of substance in philosophy. And without these concepts, there could be no idea of causality or science. Instead, the Chinese develop[ed] correlational logic, analogical thought, and relational thinking, which, though appropriate to science, are highly useful in socio-political theory. That is why the bulk of Chinese philosophy is philosophy of life.’”
Read that again, “nuality”.
‘Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud’ is worthwhile.
International Mathematical Olympiad Hall of Fame: http://www.imo-official.org/hall.aspx
Looking through other Olympiad competitions (astronomy, biology, linguistics, philosophy, informatics, etc.), I see a variety of nations, and not only Asian competitors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Linguistics_Olympiad
Gifted education scores (you will like these): http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004desegregatingGiftedEducation.pdf
Lastly, to “nuality”: English, nuclear weapons, and computers. Yes. It isn’t difficult to understand that the nature of the environments and the patterns of thinking required to conceive of atoms; philosophy and science; Aristarchus’ heliocentric theory; the organ (water and air); glass (see Morris’ “West”); the works of Hippocrates; the Antikythera mechanism (the oldest analogue computer ever recovered); Heron’s steam engine; the mentioned “mechanical birds” of Emperor Theophilus’ throne room; Tartaglia’s formula; Thales (600 BC) and Ptolemy’s experiments with lodestone (magnetite); the works of Brahe, Huygens, and Newton; all transition clearly into the industrial revolution, human rights, modern global law, genetics, quantum mechanics, the Turing machine, atomic power, and NASA; and so on. It’s simply how we think.
“Heroic theory of invention” vs “multiple discovery”
Perchance you are presuming that most of these scientific and technological directions are inevitable for any culture, but that could be the product of hindsight bias: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/79/6/890/ Who knows? As Shakespeare wrote, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Nonetheless: All humans have value, and we share this planet. Everyone uses everything to advance everything else; copying alone does not bring advancement: Augustine wrote, “I err, therefore, I am.” The “usurpation” will never happen, and there will never be a “lead”. With the continuation of human evolution via further globalization, space exploration and genetic engineering, we can stop worrying about this subject, for the species.
Quotes giving insight into Western thinking:
The Temple of Apollo at Delphi: “Know Thyself.”
Plato: “You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.”
Seneca: “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.”
Da Vinci: “I have been impressed with the urgency of doing. Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Being willing is not enough; we must do.” “I have offended God and mankind because my work didn’t reach the quality it should have.”
Michelangelo: “Genius is eternal patience.” “I am still learning.”
Goethe: “A really great talent finds happiness in execution.”
Pasteur: “Did you ever observe to whom the accidents happen? Chance favors only the prepared mind.”
Again: All humans have value. Everyone is able to contribute. If it makes you happy to think otherwise (re: “nuke”), please continue.
I’ll leave with a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote: “Every man has his own vocation. The talent is the call. There is one direction in which all space is open to him. He has faculties silently inviting him thither to endless exertion. He is like a ship in a river; he runs against obstructions on every side but one; on that side all obstruction is taken away, and he sweeps serenely over God’s depths into an infinite sea. This talent and this call depend on his organization, or the mode in which a general soul incarnates in him. He inclines to do something which is easy to him, and good when it is done, but which no other man can do. He has no rival. For the more truly he consults his own powers, the more difference will his work exhibit from the work of any other. When he is true and faithful, his ambition is exactly proportional to his powers. By doing his work he makes the need felt which only he can supply.”
disappointed
15 August 2012
nuality. your comments display your lack of intelligence. but i guess your intelligence is too low for you to even understand that…it’s a shame really.
nuality
16 August 2012
My intelligence is low? LOL… It is you low life Anglos that have to rely on IQ test for your pride. Trust me, We Chinese don’t care for your kind.
Continually amused
11 December 2012
Okay, so nuality and Mike Yang.
I’ll begin with nuality, because he’ll be much easier to contend with. When you are beginning to shout KKK-like slogans of a ‘monkey race’ and calling for nuclear annihilation, it’s pretty clear you need to be locked up in a mental asylum and never see the light of day. You’re a knuckle-dragging racist hoping for a genocide. I only hope they throw the key away.
Mike Yang: Sure, nothing is taken entirely out of context, but it’s a well-worn lie that Ancient Greece essentially stole everything they learned. That was the tactic of the Romans.
A lot of geometry and algebra was, in essence, invented out of nothing. The introduction of the zero wasn’t completed until not only after the glory of Ancient Greece had fallen but even after Rome had since long fallen, so the fact that you are mixing up the history doesn’t exactly produce confidence in your ability to retain facts in an accurate manner.
Also, a note on Egypt: many of their rulers and scientists were actually West European in origin. This is a new discovery made possible by modern genetics and has been very controversial – because what we now know is that Ancient Egypt was essentially quite similar to South Africa during the Apartheid era. A tiny white minority and a large underclass, mostly enslaved, of Africans and Arabs(who are, genetically speaking, a mixture of Africans and Caucasians – and I use ‘Caucasian’ in a broad, non-European context). See more on this topic here: http://suite101.com/article/pharaoh-tutankhamens-european-genes-a408833
Again, there’s still a lot of research needed to be done, but the pattern is pretty clear, the more they study it, the stronger the link becomes.
As for China: True, China was more advanced than the West throughout significant periods of history. That isn’t really the argument. The argument is: why didn’t that advantage manifest itself more clearly – and why was it the West, not China(because let’s be frank, when we mean the ‘East’ we really do mean China, essentially) that rose to completely dominate the world. People talk about slave labor etc, but slavery was not an abberation 500 years ago. It was the norm. In China, as well as throughout the world at large. So slavery itself couldn’t have sparked it.
Also, Europe was more advanced than China during stages of its history, just like the Arab world was the most dominant center of civilization around 800 A.D. The torch of civilization has been passed around for ages and will continue to do so.
Second, it’s mostly a myth that Europe was in total decline during the so-called ‘dark ages’. The more advanced, supposedly – Arab armies, as well as the mongol hordes, failed to make permanent inroads into Europe. They held onto half of Spain and parts of what is today modern Turkey, but they never got into France, Germany or, say, Poland and conquered it for good. Technology, as we all know, is very important in warfare.
Going forward, I think it’s very likely that China will surpass any other country in terms of economic strength. That isn’t so specacular. When you have over a billion people, the fact that you’re still poorer than a country like America, with about 1/4th of your entire population, is a bit of an embarrassment. Per capita, however, China will remain under Western levels for many, many decades.
But, unlike in the 1700s or the 1800s, technological advancements don’t stay inside a country for very long. The rapid change now occurs so fast that whenever a country reaches a new milestone, it’s spread all over the world within months or sometimes even weeks.
In this sense, unless climate change gets us, technological progress will be more evenly shared than ever before. Some countries may spearhead that effort, like the U.S. and China, but others, like Germany, Japan, Canada or South Korea, will enjoy the fruits of that labor in an almost equal manner.
Anosh
26 December 2012
Continually amused, the notion that Greeks stole knowledge from their eastern progenitors is not a worn-lie, but rather a concrete fact. You have to give credit where it’s due. Many Greek writers acknowledge this transmitting of information from the Babylonians to the Greeks by way of conquering. Even the people who were doing the translating (much less the science) in Greece were predoninantly of Babylonian and Assyrian origin. The Greeks who got famous basically codified their information. They contributed very little. What did the Greeks have that the Babylonians didn’t? Even modern historians can’t answer that question. The only thing they can do is praise Greece and push Babylonia and Assyria aside in order to make history look more favorable towards them. This can be attested for archeologically.
nuality
28 December 2012
Continually amused,
“As for China: True, China was more advanced than the West throughout significant periods of history. That isn’t really the argument. The argument is: why didn’t that advantage manifest itself more clearly – and why was it the West, not China(because let’s be frank, when we mean the ‘East’ we really do mean China, essentially) that rose to completely dominate the world. People talk about slave labor etc, but slavery was not an abberation 500 years ago. It was the norm. In China, as well as throughout the world at large. So slavery itself couldn’t have sparked it.”
LOL.. because the west stumble upon the industrial revolution, and translation from raw animal propelled energy sources to fossil fuel energy source. I also don ‘t think China was that effected by “western domination”. The west might exterminate the native Americans, and Australians, but for China, it was just another military strong people. Historically, Chinese do not transform itself to others. The closely thing Chinese become non Chinese was the Manchu conquest of China, but it was the Manchu that became the Chinese.
“People talk about slave labor etc, but slavery was not an abberation 500 years ago. It was the norm. In China, as well as throughout the world at large. So slavery itself couldn’t have sparked it.”
No, China don ‘t have slavery. Slavery only happen in places where labor is scares.
“Also, Europe was more advanced than China during stages of its history, just like the Arab world was the most dominant center of civilization around 800 A.D. The torch of civilization has been passed around for ages and will continue to do so.”
Wrong, again. China is the dominate civilization for the last 18 of the last 20 centuries. The mongolians, and turkics( East Asian genetics) dominate the near east. The Hun dominate the Romans.
“Second, it’s mostly a myth that Europe was in total decline during the so-called ‘dark ages’. The more advanced, supposedly – Arab armies, as well as the mongol hordes, failed to make permanent inroads into Europe. They held onto half of Spain and parts of what is today modern Turkey, but they never got into France, Germany or, say, Poland and conquered it for good. Technology, as we all know, is very important in warfare”
Wong again, Moors did not expand up north because it was not “worth it”. There was nothing worth taking. The center of civilization was not in high cold plain of northern Europe, except blood girls, but the Northman sell their blood girls to Islamic traders.
“Going forward, I think it’s very likely that China will surpass any other country in terms of economic strength. That isn’t so specacular. When you have over a billion people, the fact that you’re still poorer than a country like America, with about 1/4th of your entire population, is a bit of an embarrassment. Per capita, however, China will remain under Western levels for many, many decades.”
Wrong, Wages, and Income is directly related to productivity.. Just be clear, Chinese, or east Asians are superior, and more productive than whiteys. All the science/math/business competitions are won by Chinese. We are superior, hard working, and better people. This is why we should make more money than you.
“with about 1/4th of your entire population, is a bit of an embarrassment. Per capita, however, China will remain under Western levels for many, many decades.”
It is not an embarrassment. China was closed, and beat by imperialism. Now, they are free. The Chinese will regain its place in the world.
“But, unlike in the 1700s or the 1800s, technological advancements don’t stay inside a country for very long. The rapid change now occurs so fast that whenever a country reaches a new milestone, it’s spread all over the world within months or sometimes even weeks.
In this sense, unless climate change gets us, technological progress will be more evenly shared than ever before. Some countries may spearhead that effort, like the U.S. and China, but others, like Germany, Japan, Canada or South Korea, will enjoy the fruits of that labor in an almost equal manner.”
Wrong, China takes all, because Chinese are inherent more superior, and to a lesser extend even Koreans, and Japanese are more superior than whitey. In an even playing field, it is the people that are most productive wins. Sinophere people are more superior, so they ought to take all.
An East Asian
16 January 2013
I highly agree with khongbox, i find it really hard to believe that verbal ability is linked more to creativity than spatial ability does. If anything, imagination itself is pretty much visual-spatial, which is also fluid intelligence. Using verbal means of testing the components of fluid intelligence (such as logic) is really just testing fluid intelligence, not verbal ability.
An East Asian
16 January 2013
‘Without the subject-predicate pattern of sentence structure,’ says Zhou Youguang, ‘the Chinese did not develop the idea of the law of identity in logic or the concept of substance in philosophy. And without these concepts, there could be no idea of causality or science.’
I’m confused. How does language actually affect the ability to develop the idea of causality or science? I have always seen language as merely a tool to express thoughts, emotions and visualities.
Davey G
24 January 2013
@nuality “Wrong, China takes all, because Chinese are inherent more superior, and to a lesser extend even Koreans, and Japanese are more superior than whitey.”
Can’t tell if you’re a troll or you’re serious. Either way, I had a laugh.
On a side note, I think it has more to do with society than genetics. A great portion of America is “mixed race” and America is arguably still the most innovative place in the world.
nuality
3 February 2013
@Davey G,
I am not here to joke with you. Much of the dominance from the west only happen when England stumble on a few good inventions that makes sustained economic growth possible in the 1850s. It was fortunate because it expanded labor, creating a middle class that simply do not exist. When we talk about culture, economy, technology, art, literature, and every aspect you can imagine, it was the China that lead the rest of the world for the last 18 of the past 20 centuries. Chinese are genetically more smarter, more industrial, and risk taking than other people as can be verified by Chinese diaspora all over the world that arrived from nothing to reach upper middle class within a generation. Look, just look at Chinese calligraphy, and art, and compare it to the what the rest of the world are producing. Chinese ARE superior! The Anglo-Saxon are perhaps a little better than the west Africans, but do not kid yourself that you are better.
You said America is innovative? Are you serious? Have you check who is doing the innovating? American culture is not conducive to innovation. Who is doing the innovating are the Chinese, Koreans, japanese, Indians, jews, Iranian immigrants..etc. American culture teach people to be ass-holes.