Can Asians Think?
By • 3/24/09A recent piece by John Derbyshire, very much worth reading in its own right, contained a link to a brutal depreciation of the Asian intellect by one Satoshi Kanazawa, professor at the London School of Economics. Prof. Kanazawa has plainly had it up to here with Asians and puts the smackdown on white multiculturalists who gain virtue points by talking up Asian superiority. The article begins with a section pleasingly entitled “Asians Can’t Think” that documents their pronounced inferiority to white people in creativity. (I’ve also written about Asians’ creativity deficit.) Intelligent Asians are great at making “making the robot dog Aibo look and behave even more like a real dog,” but they’re very bad at formulating the radically new concepts that make for major scientific innovations.
Asians are so conformist that they have a hard time grasping the Western concept of original work.
At LSE, we have an enormous problem of plagiarism among our Asian students. Despite the fact that each student, Asian or otherwise, must sign a declaration that their work is original and they have not plagiarized, many Asian students simply copy the work of established scholars. To them it is a venerable act of honoring their masters to “borrow” from them, by copying their words verbatim. No matter how much we tell them that it is wrong, Asian students simply cannot understand why it is wrong to honor their intellectual masters by faithfully reproducing their work. Needless to say, this is no recipe for scientific progress.
Kanazawa treats us to an insider’s lowdown on Chinese university students:
The communist government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has a policy of not letting their brightest students leave the country for fear of the brain drain and of forcing them to study home at Chinese universities. Then it sends the second-rate students to American universities and the third-rate students to British universities, both with falsified transcripts and exam results to make them look first-rate. Here at LSE where I teach, we receive a large number of these third-rate Chinese students dressed up as first-rate. (About 5-10% of all undergraduate and graduate students at LSE are from PRC.) Virtually every Chinese applicant to LSE boasts “the highest exam scores in their province.” Apparently it has not occurred to the LSE admissions office that there could not possibly be that many provinces in China. Naturally, most of these PRC students do very poorly and fail out of the program, and, when they do, many confess to having purchased or otherwise fabricated their exam scores and transcripts before they applied for LSE.
This article made my day, and I’m hoping it might make yours, too.
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the White America mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever White America publishes new entries.
Just a quick note.
I independently came to the same conclusion a long time ago regarding Asian creativity vis-a-vis White creativity. Asians are very good at mimicry but not invention.
Take electronics, for example. The vacuum tube, the transistor, the printed circuit, the microchip — Western inventions all. But the Japanese and Koreans excelled at exploiting their potential and have dominated the world for decades now in that field.
Ditto the internal combustion engine and the automobile.
That must be the least scholarly professional journal article I’ve ever read. I even thought it might be a spoof.
This confirms what I have said about IQ tests only measuring the cognitive component of intelligence, rather than intelligence as a whole. Those elements of intelligence which are independent of cognitive ability — creativity, for example — are not as yet capable of being systmetically tested.
J. Wingfield
That must be the least scholarly professional journal article I’ve ever read. I even thought it might be a spoof.
While I am partial to Kanazawa’s thesis and think it is probably true, I do have to agree that it is one of the least scholarly professional journal articles I have ever read. It does have the feel of a spoof or parody of a real article.
Funny thing is, one of Kanazawa’s points in the article to support his thesis is that Asians can’t write! Which might explain why it’s so poorly written.
I suppose this is as good a place to mention this as any. I have always held off writing this because I was aware that it might be construed as offensive to American soldiers, sailors and airmen. So, with all due respect, it seems to me that war in the Pacific versus the Japanese was a lot easier than it might have been. Most of the battles, after the first one, were pretty one sided with the Americans generally heavily defeating the Japanese. Hitler and the Germans was a much different proposition, and on a level playing field the Germans were probably superior to the Allies, but the Japanese seemed to never win anything once the Americans started to get their act together. (The Japs had more success against the British,but these lossies are regarded as the most humiliating the British army ever suffered, and even they were beginning to turn the tide in Burma towards the end.)
On a more mundane level, I have also noticed that Oriental writers tend to be emotional and rely on rhetoric rather than facts. Remember the kerfuffle about some Oriental “journalist” who wrote an article about “Why Asians don’t like blacks” a few years back. What a wonderful opportunity to have an honest dialogue about race! Yet the article was dire, with little reference to facts, and full of juvenile ranting. What a wasted opportunity.
I found that article fascinating because I myself always wondered why white academics gushed over Oreintals and how much smarter they are than us. I always thought that whites were far more creative and imaginative, which why the modern world was invented in the west. Orientals/East Asians seem very, very good at studying an invention and improving upon it. It is almost as if whites are better “day dreamers” and asians are better at “intense focusing”. Who knows, maybe one compliments the other. It is too bad that blacks simply do not seem to be intellectually adept at much of anything. Quite sad.
I second Nick and Big Jim. The article is suspiciously informal and substandard for a LSE professor. No subject so controversial would be written in an almost causal way, and without hard facts. IMO, its an attempt by Satoshi Kanazawa to poke White people in the eye. Did a White colleague have a tiff with him at the water cooler? Is it sarcasm?
Kanazawa clearly means what he says. He cites statistics about Nobel prizes and refers to research on Asian IQ and Asian culture to back up his point. The article is not poorly written either—true humor requires great ability. As you’ll see if you read the Derbyshire piece, the article was written in the context of an exchange among scholars, and Geoffrey Miller, who began the exchange, introduced the breezy tone. Speculations about the future course of history lend themselves to a joking style as the subject is so vast and cloudy that it would be folly to think one could give it scientific treatment. Also, Kanazawa is stating a highly controversial position, and humor is one way of coating bitter pills.
Hey hey, IanJ, I hadn’t thought of it that way. (There will be no more rhymes in this post.) The article didn’t make me particularly happy or sad.
I thought Kanazawa was quite unfair to Asians on the subject of languages. “Asians are notoriously poor at acquiring foreign languages, particularly English, compared to the relative ease with which Europeans speak English.” He chalks this up to low verbal intelligence, which seems too negative - I’d say their verbal intelligence is just less outstanding than their quantitative intelligence. But more than that … most Europeans start out speaking Indo-European languages, of which English is one. Even the exceptions (say, Hungarians or Basques) have been surrounded (or mostly surrounded) by IE speakers for a thousand years or so; this can’t be said of anyone in Asia who have typically been building language education for for a few hundred years in coastal areas, or a few decades in inland areas.
A more fair comparison would be to compare the speed at which a German picks up Chinese to the reverse. Or, you could compare the speed at which Chinese person picks up Tibetan to the speed at which a German picks up Russian.
Beyond that, though, I think Kanazawa’s assertions are at least plausible. Surely the Asian countries (at least the coastal ones with cosmopolitan ports) have been in a position to desire the benefits of new technology - their lack of patents can’t be explained by Luddite agitation or “noble savage” fantasies of Japanese folks living peacefully in the jungle. What I’d like to see, more than the verbal:quant distinction, is the crystalized:fluid distinction. Is this sort of thing as simply saying that Sino-Japanese brains are strong in crystalized g and weak in fluid g? I couldn’t say, myself.
“Dan Dediu and Robert Ladd at the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom have published a study in which they look at 49 different populations worldwide and compared the use of vowels and consonants as well as the use of tonal language with the frequency of specific variants of two genes known to be involved in brain development - ASPM-D and microcephalin-D. They found no correlation with consonant and vowel use, but did find a highly significant correlation between these variants and the lack of a tonal component to language.
Tonal languages are those that use inflection to convey meaning, like Chinese. Tonal languages are found in southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, but are not found anywhere in Europe or North America. Previous studies have shown that people from cultures that use a tonal language have a superior ability to perceive tones than those that do not, and also that there is great variability within populations to perceive tones.” http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=253
Genes do supposedly influence lanuage ability. Perhaps there is merit to Kanazawa’s theory of Asian clumsiness to acquiring English proficiency. Interesting anyway.
W.H.I.T.E.S. V.E.R.S.U.S. A.S.I.A.N. = “Whites’ Heuristic, Innovative Trailblazing Eclipses So-called ‘Vaunted’ Rivals Some University Spokesmen Are Intimating As ‘Nonpareil’”
If these Asian-supremist, self-hating Whites ever took the time to think they would see that Asians go west to get educations from world-class intstitutions the White man founded, and not the obverse…. White literary geniuses are plentiful in spite of all the hype concerning Asians. They could hold a candle to a storied past.
Asians may or may not be very creative, but it hardly seems to matter these days does it? Who is reproducing faster as a result of modern technology? Are Western powers accruing a technology lead over Asians?
In order to capitalize on our supposed greater creativity, we would need to form not simply white nationalist countries, but xenophobic ones that refused to exchange information (and probably would have to refuse trade) with any non-white country.
I hate to see people claiming Asians can’t compete in science and using that as an excuse to be complacent.
lol
I’m sure this is exactly why Microsoft is the biggest imitator in consumer electronics, and its rivals, Sony and Nintendo, are responsible for the innovation.
lol
Has Kanazawa stated whether the supposed Asian creativity deficit is genetic or not?
He seems to mention only cultural factors. And in this I will admit there is some truth. And so will many Chinese I know.
However saying that whites have greater verbal ability than Asians just because Germans and Norwegians pick up English faster than East Asians is just plain ridiculous. Firstly most European languages are closely related to one another. Secondly, the Chinese language for one, has a very simple grammatical structure. Aside from enunciation, Chinese is simply easier for a foreigner than almost any European language. Thus a European can master Chinese to almost perfection whereas a Chinese, no matter how educated, will always struggle with English grammar.
A better way to compare the two races for genetic differences in verbal ability is of course to look at how American born Asians compare with white Americans - who have been raised in a more or less similar economic and social environment. I’m not aware that such a study has ever been done.
So, with all due respect, it seems to me that war in the Pacific versus the Japanese was a lot easier than it might have been. Most of the battles, after the first one, were pretty one sided with the Americans generally heavily defeating the Japanese.
What you have said is, I think, true. But is this because of culture or genes? If we read about the great Mongol conquests against the numerically superior Russians, Poles, Germans and Hungarians, something similar could be said - but in favor of the Mongols.
Science and techonolgy of course is not the only channel for demonstrating creativity (as many posters here seem to think).
Asian cuisine, especially Chinese and Japanese, is vastly superior to French and Italian, in its variety and subtlety. Everytime I go to a good Chinese restaurant, I will eat something that has been prepared and cooked in a way I have never before tried.
And anyone who has read great Chinese poetry, often written spontaneously, would highly doubt claims of an inherent lack of Asian creativity
Nations and civilizations go through high points and low points. China has been in the doldrums for 500 years. She seems to be awakening now.
Obviously from the perpective of a patriotic Chinese, I would much rather whites underestimate us, to dismiss us, than to take us seriously.
Having read the article, it is quite obvious that Satoshi Kanazawa is an attention hog - one of those Asians in the West who deliberately contrives a maverick image for himself or herself - in a desperate wish to be loved and accepted by whites. In this way he is at least as conformist as his countrymen back home.
There are of course genuine mavericks out there, people who really don’t care what people think of them, and then there are the wannabe types who secretly crave attention and public approbation. Kanazawa is quite clearly the latter type.
Ian Jobling - I find it surprising you fail to perceive something so utterly obvious.
John Liu writes: “Obviously from the perpective of a patriotic Chinese, I would much rather whites underestimate us, to dismiss us, than to take us seriously.”
Sorry John, but I take Asians quite seriously, and don’t find Kanazawa’s work convincing.
The idea that Asians are less creative than Whites has been around for a long time. I remember it being bandied about in the late 80s when I was a grad student.
There may be some truth to the idea. Whites are more criminal than Asians, just as Blacks are more criminal than Whites. It’s probably that criminality/rebelliousness and creativity are correlated.
More work needs to be done, but I wouldn’t count on this creativity gap saving Whites. There are enough creative Asians, and creativity seems less useful these days. Refinement of existing knowledge can take us a long ways.
“Obviously from the perpective of a patriotic Chinese, I would much rather whites underestimate us, to dismiss us, than to take us seriously.”
“Obviously”? That you should want others (white people) to underestimate you is not at all obvious. It is surely more obvious that you would wish white people to respect Chinese people and to take them seriously. I think that we all want to be taken seriously much of the time, and it is a terrible blow to one’s self esteem when one detects that others are being patronising. There are odd occasions when we want others to underestimate our abilities, say an opponent in a boxing match, but these are special cases.
In the sentence I have quoted, the subtext is to inform white readers on this forum that the Chinese are so self confident that they don’t care what white people think of them. But, ironically, the way you have of telling white people this (and especially using the word “obviously”) reveals that you really do care very much what white people think. I.e. you don’t want whites to think that the Chinese care what whites are thinking!
I am British. The UK has been a really heavyweight mover and shaker over the last five hundred or so years, and still is. (Genetic fingerprinting, Viagra, Ibuprofen, Harry Potter, The Beatles, Soccer, etc). Obviously (and I do mean obviously) the British are supremely confident and self assured. Probably more so than Americans. Now, British people are very positive concerning the Chinese. We readily admit that Chinese cooking is much better than ours, and that Chinese youngsters over here do better at school, and the Chinese are probably harder working than the natives. We have no problem at all in admitting that the Chinese do many things better than us because we don’t have a sense of inferiority or grievence to overcome. It would be unthinkable, therefore, for me to begin a sentence “Obviously, I want the Chinese to underestimate the British”, unless I was talking about a chess tournament.
“A better way to compare the two races for genetic differences in verbal ability is of course to look at how American born Asians compare with white Americans - who have been raised in a more or less similar economic and social environment. I’m not aware that such a study has ever been done.”
Liu, read the link I posted. Tonal languages are easier to grasp depending on racial background.
Also, Kanazawa is almost condescending in the article. How can someone raise a serious question about racial differences in creativity when the criteria for “creativity” is not even defined?
I find the article unsubstantiated.Whilst it is true that asians have a higher performance IQ than verbal IQ,their verbal abilities are still good;101.4 is in fact about the average verbal IQ here in the West.However it would be interesting to know wether that “verbal IQ” is made up of both the Working Memory and the Verbal Comprehension subsections of the WAIS or it is a measure of verbal abilities alone.In any case,verbal intelligence do not contribute to sciences to a great extent,and I doubt “creative scientific thinking” if such thing exists,is determined by verbal IQ and logical thinking,as Mr.Kanagawa says.I think the best measures of “abstract thinking” in the respect of science abilities are tests of matrices which measure “analogical reasoning and abstract nonverbal problem-solving” (Wechsler,2008),and asians surpass whites in these tests (for example,Japanese obtain a mean higher than 105 in the “raven” test).Still,i must insist that the whole “creative intelligence” thing is very subjective and immeasurable.If asians are so lacking in creative thinking,how did the chinese invent the compass,paper,gunpowder,printing….? I am looking at an encyclopedy that includes a list of ancient chinese inventions,and the list contains more than 500 inventions!! it is easy to assume that westerners and asians are equally creative,and more inventions were made in ancient China because China was a more powerful economic power at that time,just as the West became economically stronger than Asia in the 19th century,and thus most scientific inventions have been made here since then.
“In any case,verbal intelligence do not contribute to sciences to a great extent”
How do you know this? I studied advanced logic and maths as a graduate student and the ability to follow the proofs of the theorems had a lot to do with verbal abilities and nothing to do with the sorts of skills that one acquires in school or even undergraduate maths. There were two students with First Class Honours degrees that dropped out/struggled.
Most of the things the Chinese invented went largely unused by the Chinese, and had to be completely invented again. The vast majority of technology, metadevices, and institutions in existence today were invented by Caucasians, and specifically Caucasians of European origin.
The crossbow, the cannon, and firearms were known and used in mediaeval Europe during the fourteenth century. The earliest guns and cannons appeared in China towards the end of the thirteenth century; about the same time they appeared in Europe.
You failed to mention that China was conquered by the barbarous Mongols during the thirteenth century. That should tell you something about their superior military technology.
For most of recorded history, China was far behind the West in science and technology. The comparative backwardness of China throughout recorded history apparent in such important fields as agriculture, writing, astronomy, mathematics, metalworking, and cloth making.
The White* male, with the help of God’s inspiration, has brought about a world where White-hating minorities here and abroad live more comfortable lives! Ipso facto, all those putative “Black Inventions” are de facto fiction!” I always capitalize the word “White”, when referring to our people -as should everyone else…. B.L.A.C.K. H.I.S.T.O.R.Y. M.O.N.T.H. = “Books Letting Afrocentrists Claim Knowledgeable Historical Inventions (Science, Technology) Offer Revisionist Yarns Mocking Occidental Nations’ True History!”
Yes, the West or Occident can invariable claim most achievements by dint of the genius of Whites in spite of the Orwellian newspeak we inure to on a constant basis. Asians can only copy the seminal Inventions that Whites carried out. *Yarns are exaggerated stories
I am Chinese so I am familiar with the perceived challenges of creativity in China. However, I do think that judging an entire race by looking at the last few decades is not very objective. Chinese invented a ton of things when whites were concerned with merely surviving. In fact, the very reason China has such large population is because the Chinese were able to form civilized societies thousands of years ago. So while I think whites have excelled in recent advancement in technology and other areas, it really doesn’t mean much in the long run. I mean, just look at the country with the most patents which is a good way to track creativity by country.
Oscar Wilde, you fail to mention that those firearms or cannons appeared about the time the Turks came and conquered a broken Roman Empire easily. That was the first introduction of the cannon to Europe, described as the shape of a lion’s head and tail that St. John has prophesized in the Bible, and detailed in John Gibbon’s The Fall of the Roman Empire. No doubt the Turks got this invention through the silk road since they are our closest neighbors. The Chinese also made complex land mines with gunpowder as well, and muskets. You also forget to mention fundamentals items that the Chinese constantly use like paper, compass, silk, and a couple of other inventions. The manuscripts of the new testaments were written on a type of papyrus plant that didn’t last as long as paper. While, the Chinese hasn’t made strides in math and science, you can’t ignore the fact that these fundamental items gave Europe a start to advance on and create more inventions in their already intense naturalistic or alchemic mind-set.
“We know of a gene that may play a part in this story: the 7R allele of the DRD4(dopamine receptor D4) gene. It is associated with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, a behavioral syndrome best characterized by actions that annoy elementary school teachers: restless impulsive behavior, inattention, distractibility.
The polymorphism is found at varying but significant levels in many parts of the world, but is almost totally absent from East Asia. Interestingly, alleles derived from the 7R allele are fairly common in China, even thought the 7R alleles themselves are extremely rare there. It is possible that individuals bearing these alleles were selected against because of cultural patterns in China. The Japanese say that the nail that sticks out is hammered down, but in China it may have been pulled out and thrown away.
Selection for submission to authority sounds unnervingly like domestication. In fact, there are parallels between process of domestication in animals and the changes that have occurred in humans during the Holocene period.” http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004desegregatingGiftedEducation.pdf
This is a section on ADD from Cochran and Harpending’s brilliant book The 10,000 Year Explosion. I won’t count this as proof of an Asian creativity deficient because creativity and success is vague, but Orientals are arguably more conformist/domesticated in comparison with people of European descent.
La Griffe seems to be under the impression verbal intelligence is more important at visuospatial intelligence, perhaps because verbal intelligence is more important to abstract thinking abilities than visuospatial intelligence.
Ashkenazi Jews have the strongest verbal intelligence of any ethnic group in the world and 22% of all nobel prize winners in the hard sciences have been either Jewish or individuals with one Jewish parent. On the other hand, Northeast Asia have badly underperformed Jews and Europeans in nobel prizes since WWII (Japan has only 13 prizes in the hard sciences since 1945, Germany and Britain alone have way more):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ListofNobellaureatesby_country