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.’”