The average scores of the top 10 percentile in Japan(667) and South Korea(650) are the highest in the world before those of U.S.(600) and Germany(627) in problem-solving according to the latest PISA research. These results contradicts the typical arguments of White supremacists and idiots alike who believe that East Asians outperform Whites due to mere rote-memorization but lack of broader understanding. In fact, East Asians, especially those of South Korea and Japan, are better at integrating knowledge and applying them to solve complex problems than Whites. These results do not prove that East Asians have higher creativity. However, educational performances is highly correlated with intelligence and high intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for high creativity. It is therefore likely that East Asians have more geniuses than Whites. Moreover, innovation performances cannot be used as an indication of creativity due to comparative differences in political maneuverability for science-fostering policies and differences in level of wealth. Lastly, artistic creativity does not indicate any lack of creativity among East Asians relative to Whites in comparable socio-economic strata and educational backgrounds.


There is not enough data to know absolutely how well East Asian would perform in intellectual aspects such as inventiveness without comparative advantages, or disadvantages; however, current biological data suggest that East Asians have equal or superior standard deviation as well as an higher average IQ than White, which is also supported by results in international mathematical and science tests. Scientists either argue that East Asians are the smartest group or that every group is equal. No scientist specializing in psychometric science has ever suggested that East Asians are less creative, let alone less intelligent. They did not since there are little researches that have been done on the subject and methodological errors have corrupted the data in some of them. Due to the comparative inequalities, as well as cultural factors, it is ignorant to assume psychometric data based on innovation performances.

Whites say a lot of things but it's mostly smoke and mirrors.

PISA is a test of the education system more than anything else. Since it is given to 15-year olds, it is not a general gauge of knowledge & aptitude at higher levels, where real advancements & breakthroughs happen. Thus, even though East Asian students may perform very well in PISA, that does not mean they will go on to become world-renowned scientists, writers, and mathematicians. There is more to these vocations than test scores, which do not and cannot gauge genius.

In fact, we have a good explanation for why East Asian countries score well on PISA: they have a more robust education system at lower levels, which expect more out of students and teach them more advanced concepts, earlier. Of course, good results from education depend on the presence of good students, so to that end the PISA results show that East Asia also possesses smart, diligent students. But do these students go on to make dazzling contributions? That remains to be seen, and so far the answer seems to be: not as much as we should expect from these results. Japan, for example, has been industrialized for quite a while, yet its share of the world's greatest thinkers does not correlate with its share of the world's best students. Charles Murray has noted that nearly all of the popularly referenced scientific and mathematical achievements in the last few thousand years have been made by Western thinkers, indicating the degree of Western exceptionalism in these areas.

Consequently, we need to recognize that there are other factors to achievement that PISA, and other such exams, do not test for.

Very poor understanding of what I wrote above, I believe.

You are saying that PISA results correlate with high intelligence, but that depends on your definition of intelligence. I choose to see high intelligence as including the ability to innovate; now, you are not saying that PISA results prove anything about innovation, but somewhere in the first paragraph you mention that East Asians "likely have more geniuses than whites." I completely disagree with that. To the extent that genius can be defined, it is definitely not achievement with respect to test performance, but always achievement with respect to actual accomplishments.

I guess I will have to convince you.

Also, why are you using data from 2003? (The problem solving category was used in PISA 2003, but not in PISA 2006) Isn't PISA 2006 the latest research?

First of all, when the entire population of a country virtually lives below the threshold of poverty, you are not going to have a lot of geniuses, let alone innovations. Without more knowledge-capital, it is virtually impossible to out-innovate another country, especially in the highest portion of complexity-ladder. Costly knowledge-installation is a major element of knowledge-capital to a far greater extent than human-capital is. Secondly, the most probable reason, and by far, why Japan lags in science is because they have adopted a completely different policy than Western countries regarding research and development with very little investment made for basic sciences. The reason why Japan is adopting such a different approach is most probably because of a lack of natural resources, which is of little concern among Western countries. Japan cannot afford to not enjoy a large trade surplus with the rest of the world as demographic and economic problems will certainly compromise stability of the region in the future, but to a lesser extent than China. It is way more prudent and wise for Japan to direct most of its resources in finding commercial applications of innovations made in basic sciences by other countries for greater export rather than in basic sciences. Also, Finland shows far less standard deviation than South Korea, let alone Japan. Lastly, Eastern Europe has hardly produced the same amount of talent than their Western peers. It is quite unlikely to be of genetic origin. I don't think I need to tell you what is the most likely explanation for this disparity.

That was the case for the entire world for thousands of years, yet Europe managed to produce an impressive Renaissance, a dazzling Enlightenment, and a unprecedented Industrial Revolution.



Possibly.



Saying that it's a conscious government choice is fine, but does not suggest how it might be fixed. Japan is not likely to have more natural resources in the future, so what you're basically saying here is that the futures of East Asian countries will be the same, or even dimmer, than they are now (due to "demographic and economic problems" compromising stability).



The idea that variance of performance (as measured by SD) correlates with genius is an unsubstantiated straw man, to begin with. But unlike you, I am not so quick to rule out genetic explanations. IQ and PISA are the best of the worst, so to speak, in terms of measuring g, which is to say that they're poor measurements to begin with. Their correlation with income is not even as high as people want to think, and might simply be an artifact of the way modern societies are structured.

Genius, however, is real, and can be defined by the degree to which a thinker transcends existing paradigms to bring us new and profound insights into the nature of reality. The characteristic of a genius, defined in the classic sense, is that of a magnificent, sustained set of achievements far beyond that expected for most human beings. Geniuses are seldom one-shot thinkers - they usually produce great bodies of work within their lifetimes that revolutionize thinking in a variety of areas. Many ancient geniuses were polymaths (ie Leonardo Da Vinci), but due to the specialization of science modern geniuses tend to be more focused. Even so, they are very prolific achievers, and tend to be synergistic - ie bringing together a variety of previous research and observations into a lucid, awe-inspiring whole.

Are any modern exams capable of predicting genius? No, they are not. To this end, can we say that East Asians are less capable of genius than white Europeans? No, it doesn't. That does not mean, however, that genius does not exist, or that genius does not have a genetic component. In the inductive view of truth (in which we say, "if the sun rises today, then it is likely to rise tomorrow, because we have not seen a day in which the sun did not rise"), it is possible to state, with some confidence, that because white Europeans have been the kernel of ingenuity for the past few thousand years, there is likely something exceptional about them - genetic or otherwise - that is not present in other populations. But this isn't possible to prove, so it is at best a (contested) theory. Still, I think it is imprudent to believe, on faith alone, that the exceptionalism of white Europeans cannot be genetic in nature. Culture, after all, is itself a product of the environment, which includes the environment of the human body - ie genes. Different populations produce different cultures both because of the physical differences of the regions in which they live, and the biological differences of their own genetic expressions. Of course, because genes are always expressed in physical environments, environment matters. But because genes do differ between populations, we cannot rule them out as explanations.

To this end, to answer your particular issue of Eastern Europe vs. Western Europe, I would like to point out that there is genetic variation across Europe. You can't paint Europe with a broad brush, no more than you can paint any other region of the world with such a brush. Heterogeneity is the rule of human populations, rather than the exception. That is not to say there aren't clear geographical lineages ("clusters" in marker analysis), and small changes at certain levels of the genetic structure can produce large variations in phenotype.

To sum up, is there anything that suggests, right now, that the lack of East Asian genius isn't a product of the socio-economic and polito-cultural environment of the region? No, there is not. But that does not mean there can't be. I tend to think that personality research might yield more interesting results, in this area, than IQ research, because there are large personality differences between East Asians and white Europeans, whereas there aren't with respect to IQ. Having a particular sort of personality might very well help someone become a genius, since with respect to achievement, it is not only capability that matters, but also drive and interest.

I didn't even bother reading. Are you an idiot? Are you Asian?

If you didn't even bother reading, then that means you were not interested in a serious discussion to begin with, but only in posting propaganda to try and boost "East Asian/Korean pride." If that's the case, then I've wasted my time. Dismissed.

You are not even Asian? lol This explains why you just won't take it up the @$$.

I am Asian, but that should not affect my argument. The point of having a rational discussion is to tackle the arguments, not the arguers.

Man, are you whitewashed or just stupid? You are so annoying! You are like these conspiracy theorists, you are so damn persistent!

I don't need to read what you have written earlier. I probably have guessed exactly what you have said. I am not saying that you are wrong; however, your belief is far-fetched. Who am I to say that God does not exist and nor does he give fellatio to his lover pikachu every night?

Neither, but unless you respond with better arguments than these, this discussion is pointless.

To be able to convince you, I would have to be God and throw the divine plan on your table.

Not really. You just have to show scientific studies that correctly control for the various confounding factors. Since they don't exist, there's nothing to convince. I'm simply pointing out the folly of drawing conclusions from limited data. We're not at the point where we can say whether there is a genetic explanation for why East Asians lag in scientific genius, yet, but there is hope that the picture will become clearer with time.

This fantasy is really stuck inside your head. They do not lad in scientific genius. They have fewer researchers dedicated to basic sciences.

Genius isn't constrained to basic sciences. Breakthroughs in other areas count, too.

Genius isn't constrained to basic sciences. Breakthroughs in other areas count, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Japan dominates every other country in "commercial" technology.

How many commercial technologies were invented by Japan? By this, I don't mean improved - I mean originated.

Oh, and here's a rating of the world's 50 most innovative companies: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte..._special+report

Breakdown:

USA 31
Britain 4
Germany 4
Japan 4
India 2
Canada 1
Finland 1
Netherlands 1
Singapore 1
South Korea 1
Total: 50

Wow, this was an awesome concluding sentence right here.

You don't know what you're talking about. They were talking about business-innovative companies. You really FAIL.

I win, you fail.

Business innovation is not innovation? Business technology is not technology? I asked for examples of major commercial innovations coming from Japan, that are not reworks and/or improvements of existing products or methods. I specifically cited that article to show you that even in terms of business innovation, Japan is not the "dominant" force on the market, which flies in the face of your assertion that Japan dominates in "commercial technology" innovation.

Do you know what business-innovation is? It's not even related to commercial patents.

You have a habit of picking parts of an argument without understanding the gist. I posted that list to show you that in terms of business innovations, Japan does not dominate by any stretch of the imagination. Now, you said that Japan dominates in "commercial technology" - anyone familiar with the area understands that this includes both the base technologies and the way in which you apply and market them. Business innovations constitute the latter, and is often just as important if not more important (see: success of Apple and Google). With regards to the former, my question cuts to the heart of the matter - give me a list of basic technologies that Japan invented.

Do you know what business-innovation is? It's not even related to commercial patents.

Are you a White ape?

On the subject of commercial patents, you should know that the quality of patents is more important than the quantity. Patents are simply legal licenses to develop new ideas - they cover everything from tiny, marginal improvements to vast technological leaps. Like I said, give me a list of base technologies developed in Japan. Then we'll talk.

You have a habit of picking parts of an argument without understanding the gist. First of all, Intel outsource most of its R&D activity outside the U.S.. Secondly, the U.S. rely a lot on foreign-born people, many of which are East Asians, for its R&D activity in contrast to Japan. Considering tri-lateral patent analysis, Japan still dominate the U.S. by a large margin. Do you realize just how big an economic advantage the U.S. has on Japan?

East Asians are more evolved. For instance, East Asians have lower egg-twinning rate than White. Less evolved animals have higher egg-twinning rate such as frogs and mice. East Asians have more spherical brains, have more voluminous brains, etc. The same biological reasons why we suspect Black people are less intelligent than White lead us to suspect that East Asians are more intelligent than White.

Why would Japan invest in capital-intensive R&D investments? There's absolutely no reason to do so. Do you realize just how absurd it is to think that behavioral differences explain why East Asians have less Nobel laureates? A model once it stumbles on a phenomenon it cannot explain is outdated or simply invalid.

Heh.

I knew you would resort to this type of argument. The reason is simple: you can't name basic technologies invented in Japan. By the way, they do exist - "blue" laser diodes, for example - but they are rare and most people have not heard of them. You don't like the implications of this; that's why you bring up things like patents.

Let me assure you, even if Intel does outsource much of its R&D, and even if the US does employ many foreign-born people in its R&D labs, the bulk of basic technologies are still invented by white Europeans. Now, lest you think that I'm tooting the horns of white supremacists, let me make it clear that: 1) East Asians do contribute to R&D, especially in terms of evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) research and 2) I'm not saying that this will always be the case. It might be that East Asia is just suffering from a dry spell, and that in the future, when economic conditions are different, there will be an explosion of revolutionary breakthroughs in East Asia. Right now, though, that's not the case, and you need to recognize the facts.



And here comes the racist diatribe. Notice that in none of my posts did I say something like "East Asians are less evolved than white Europeans" or "East Asians are inferior." I just said that there might be a genetic explanation for why East Asians lag in scientific genius, which is not the same as saying that East Asians are inferior or primitive, because at the end of the day, scientific genius isn't the only thing of worth in the world. Given this fact, your eagerness to dive into these sorts of pseudo-science is revealing (Rushton, I presume?) But just to give you a straight answer: no, none of these arguments have been substantiated with the sort of scientific rigor that they would need, particularly when it comes to defining what "more evolved" and "more intelligent" means in the first place.

What is so absurd about it? Give me one good reason why it should be dismissed, outright, as an explanation.

Some genetic factors.

One day I helped a lady who was at a loss what to do to replace a light bulb. The light was out, it was on the ceiling, she was alone, she had a spare bulb but no ladder to step on. So she didn't know what to do. But I saw a table, it was pretty big, but not that big enough for me to move alone, but big enough for her to move by herself. So I replaced the light bulb on the table.

The table was a tool. It might have been a good start for technology development in that the woman didn't even dare to try to use it. It may be a stupid thinking but I'm not that big and the woman wasn't that small, but the slight difference seemed to have made a difference in thinking. Do you think it's possible that the physical difference could have played a role to make a difference? I have no idea about genetics or that sort of things, I don't have that much background knowledge, but body size clearly correlates to genetics, doesn't it? Have Caucasians always been bigger than Asians, I mean East Asians historically? You might give me an example of the Greek philosophers and mathematicians, but they were influenced by the Egyptians, and the Egyptians built a number of pyramids even though pyramids are found everywhere including China, they built so many of them, so it might have been helpful to develop mathematics and math-related sciences albeit they may not have been the first who created the first civilization in the human history. It gives me a headache so I'm gonna stop writing here.

Asians lag in useful geniuses due to schools that inhibit creativity, Confucianism, and poor opportunities. The average Asian decades ago simply did not have the opportunities to do Nobel prize winning research. 50 years ago, Westerners were studying in established universities and doing all sorts of ground breaking research. What was his east asian counterpart doing at that time? Probably farming turnips in some rural village. Or getting killed in some war involving communism. Europe was lucky to have been hit by the bubonic plague, as it led to the renaissance which in turn led to the industrial revolution.

And its simply not fair to compare the inventions of over 100 years ago to todays inventions. Inventions were simpler 100 years ago. The first airplane was invented by 2 brothers. Try building a rocket to mars with only 2 people. Impossible. What about Gutenbergs printing press? Would Gutenberg be able to build a mall sized super computer if he were alive today?

Well said. Welcome back EAD. PS: Please clear your inbox.

It might not be fair, but it's a question of why. If science was indeed full of low hanging fruits, why did white Europeans get to pick them first? Regardless, the trend is not reversed today, not in basic science or in basic technology. Think up a list of modern technologies that you depend on or benefit from, and count how many of these originated in East Asia. I think you'll find that it's slim pickings.

But maybe the future will yield a different picture. We'll see.

You are an idiot. Did you even read what I wrote earlier? Do you have even a basic understading of it? I really doubt it. Obviously, if you had, you wouldn't have even brought up these stupid arguments. Firstly, Japan holds the majority of key inventions in the “non-military” sector. Secondly, Japan invest mostly in technology development and contrarly to the U.S. it does not assign research funds to universities, it spends them by fostering private companies' output. What this mean is that the Japanese investment priorities are greatly affected by cost-effectiveness, whereas the U.S. investment priorities are not tied to this expectation. This matters a great deal because private firms' inner-workings are geared towards commercializing existing technologies, or low-cost and remunerative R&D researches.

Moreover, there are real medical researches that indeed prove that East Asians have lower egg-twinning rate. The fact that you refuse to believe these facts reveals the motives behind your constant quibbling and irrational mode of thinking.

Are you even Asian? If you were Asian, it would be likely that you would get the broader picture. Unfortunately, you seem to think like a Westerner.

Don't talk to that idiot, he kept ignoring my arguments and twisting them to his own liking since the beginning of this thread.

Why bother posting something and then start calling people idiots when they don't agree with you? By posting here we all presume you want a well reasoned feed back (whether you agree or not), no? Or do you just want people to agree with you and go clap clap "yellow power!"? If you disagree, feel free to counter him without resorting to childish name callings, otherwise it just makes you look like a troll.

Prove it.



First, this is an over-simplification. Japan spends a great deal on university research. I know because I work in a field where Japan has a fairly large footprint (AI/robotics). Many of the evolutionary advancements in robotics come from Japan, but few of the revolutionary advancements.

Second, it's fine to say that Japan focuses on commercializing existing technologies, but that does not prove Japan is wildly innovative in a scientific sense. It seems the best argument you can make is an excuse: "Japan is not wildly innovative because Japan chooses not to be."



You clearly misunderstood what I said.

I think you are the one who misunderstood—misunderstood your own response. You said Rushton is pseudoscience in response to what I said. I say that it's not pseudoscience as most of the qualitative data he published come from cited sources, all of which I mentioned were published by highly credible sources.

Up until about the mid nineties, Japan's R&D expenditure in public institutions were greatly outstripped by that of the U.S., it is shown through contributive performances of the public sector.

Also, great behavioral differences are shown among geniuses. Thus behavioral differences cannot account for lower innovative output. In fact, any difference in the number of potential geniuses must be genetic. There are no sizable differences between the brain of a typical genius and a normal persons. The difference typically lies in the mass of gray matter in specific regions and overall brain size to a lesser relative to body size to a lesser extent. Structural differences between brains do not vary much between ethnicity in contrast to cross-species differences.

Since differences in innovative output can be easily explained in differential levels of development, it is rather absurd to propose an alternative theory that forces you to adopt a fantastical perspective on reality.

An innate intellectual advantages among Western European cannot explain why for so long East Asian civilizations were far more advanced than theirs. Your alternative theory is completely laughable. I never said that East Asian have more potential geniuses. I only said it is more likely that they have more.

Your misunderstanding comes from this statement:

"The fact that you refuse to believe these facts reveals the motives behind your constant quibbling and irrational mode of thinking."

I did not "refuse to believe these facts." I refused to interpret them in the way that you did - ie as evidence that East Asians are "more evolved," and therefore likely to be "more intelligent." I already told you why I'm skeptical of such claims.



Behavioral differences can be genetic, and using the relative degree of structural brain differences between ethnic groups in contrast to cross-species differences is absurd - of course there would tend to be less differences between ethnic groups than between species. Does that tell you no differences exist between ethnic groups? Of course not - and you yourself have been prone to arguing the opposite, such as when you pointed out that East Asians were more "evolved" and "intelligent."



Not if the differential levels of development were prompted by behavioral differences in the first place. Plus, I am not the one who proposed this alternative theory - many of the writers you depend on for your "racialist" views did the same thing. You obviously take after Rushton, but have you considered his peers? Satoshi Kanazawa, in a letter entitled "Can Asians Think?" point out to fundamental differences between East Asians and Europeans in terms of their scientific achievements and attribute such to psychological distinctions. La Griffe du Lion have argued that the reason Asians lag is due to a deficiency in verbal IQ (in contrast to the visuo-spatial IQ measured by, say, Raven's Progressive Matrices). Clearly your own views are biased to see only the positive and not the negative when it comes to biological differences. That's the problem I have with your general line of thought.



I'm not sure you can claim that East Asian civilizations were far more advanced than European civilizations "for so long." Greek civilization was the envy of the ancient world; the Greeks achieved more in the maths and sciences than almost anyone else on earth - until 16th century Europe. While China and India each had their respective maths and sciences, most scholars do not regard them to have been on par with Greek achievements. At any case, it is not accurate to say that Europe was far less advanced than China for most of its history. From the period between the 7th century and the 14th, perhaps, but before that, Greek civilization exceeded Warring States China and Roman civilization matched or exceeded Han China. European civilization did not begin in the 14th century.

The Roman empire wasn't poor. When Muslim Turks sacked Constantinople and destroyed the last ramnant of the once-mighty Roman empire and swallowed Greece, greek scholars escaped to Western Europe and brought with them greek philosophy, math and science that started the renaissance.

dp

The misunderstanding came from your incorrect use of the word pseudoscience.

Also, the more you talk the more your hidden agenda becomes evident. You obviously have a very poor knowledge of the subject at hand. First of all, verbal and visuo-spatial IQ disparity is not found in every East Asians, this is a ridiculous and stupid generalization. La Griffe du Lion's theory is a ridivulous pile of dung. He does not know what he's talking about, he's not even a scientist. Also, Satoshi Kanazawa only states his opinion, he does have very little proof to back it up.

Moreover, cognitive differences between ethnic group mainly lies in the distribution of shared traits, they are mainly distributive. All ethnicities share about the same basic brain structure and the individual differences are considerably greater than group differences. From the MRI data, we can deduce that East Asians are more cognitively gifted.

The Roman Empire in Europe (aka the Western Roman Empire) ended in the 5th century, ravaged by internal discord and facing an onslaught of Germanic tribes. Byzantium (the Eastern Roman Empire) continued, but Byzantium was a relatively lackluster civilization compared to Greece and Rome. The same process occurred in China - the Han Empire ended in the 3rd century, ravaged by internal discord and facing an onslaught of Altaic tribes, though the last remnants of its power did not fade until the fall of the Sima family in the 5th century. The Northern and Southern Dynasties, like Byzantium, retained elements of the Han, but they were lackluster civilizations operating in a period of proto-Korean ascendancy. The Sui restoration and the ensuing Tang Empire represents a departure from what happened in Europe, and might constitute China's own "Renaissance," for it was under them, and subsequent empires, that China became the most prosperous civilization in the world while Europe was undergoing its Dark Ages. But this prosperity, in China, did not produce what Europe eventually did in its own flowering during the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. Many explanations have been put forth, but the psychological one cannot be ignored. Michael H. Hart points out that one of the fundamental differences between the Chinese and the Europeans was that the Chinese never cared much for abstract theory, which includes both scientific and religious theory. Consequently, though a Renaissance occurred in China, and was sustained all the way to the Song, a period of great commercial and artistic achievement, it was not possible for the Chinese to take the next step towards Enlightenment, because there was no Han Euclid, no Chinese Archimedes.

The Roman Empire in Europe (aka the Western Roman Empire) ended in the 5th century, ravaged by internal discord and facing an onslaught of Germanic tribes. Byzantium (the Eastern Roman Empire) continued, but Byzantium was a relatively lackluster civilization compared to Greece and Rome. The same process occurred in China - the Han Empire ended in the 3rd century, ravaged by internal discord and facing an onslaught of Altaic tribes, though the last remnants of its power did not fade until the fall of the Sima family in the 5th century. The Northern and Southern Dynasties, like Byzantium, retained elements of the Han, but they were lackluster civilizations operating in a period of proto-Korean ascendancy. The Sui restoration and the ensuing Tang Empire represents a departure from what happened in Europe, and might constitute China's own "Renaissance," for it was under them, and subsequent empires, that China became the most prosperous civilization in the world while Europe was undergoing its Dark Ages. But this prosperity, in China, did not produce what Europe eventually did in its own flowering during the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. Many explanations have been put forth, but the psychological one cannot be ignored. Michael H. Hart points out that one of the fundamental differences between the Chinese and the Europeans was that the Chinese never cared much for abstract theory, which includes both scientific and religious theory. Consequently, though a Renaissance occurred in China, and was sustained all the way to the Song, a period of great commercial and artistic achievement, it was not possible for the Chinese to take the next step towards Enlightenment, because there was no Han Euclid, no Chinese Archimedes.