why east asians aren’t more creative

one of the questions always floating around in the hbd-o-sphere is why aren’t those really clever east asians more creative.

well, kiwiguy over @dennis’ commented the other day:

“Cochran & Harpending discuss a gene associated with ADD & impulsive behaviour in ‘The 10,000 Year Explosion‘:

“‘The polymorphism is found at varying but significant levels in many parts of the world, but is almost entirely absent from East Asia…

“‘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…’ (page 112)”

(*hbdchick reaches for her copy of the book*)

yup. kiwiguy is right. says here right on page 112:

“We know of a gene that may play a part in this story: the 7R (for 7-repeat) allele of the DRD4 (dopamine receptor D4) gene. It is associated with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a behavioral syndrome best characterized by actions that annoy elementary school teachers: restless-impulsive behavior, inattention, distractibility, and the like.

“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 though 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.”

now here’s an article that i happened to link to in this past sunday’s linkfest:

Creativity is an upside to ADHD

“Parents who believe that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder makes their kids more creative got a little more scientific support recently.

“A new study in the Journal of Personality and Individual Differences found adults with ADHD enjoyed more creative achievement than those who didn’t have the disorder.

“‘For the same reason that ADHD might create problems, like distraction, it can also allow an openness to new ideas,’ says Holly White, assistant professor of cognitive psychology at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Florida and co-author of the paper. ‘Not being completely focused on a task lets the mind make associations that might not have happened otherwise….'”

so, there you go! low frequencies of adhd genes = low creativity. solved that for ya. ENGLISH BLOKE solved that for ya first. (~_^) ur welcome!

(note: comments do not require an email.)

Advertisements

34 Comments

  1. That’s about right – creativity correlates with ‘Psychoticism’ (on which personality trait dimension ADHD would be high); but high level creative accomplishment (‘genius’) also needs very high IQ.

    The authority was HJ Eysenck in his book Genius of 1995, or summarized in this paper:

    HJ Eysenck. Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory Psychological Inquiry, 1993 4, 147-178 .

    Reply

  2. I suppose Ritalin is better than culling. At least our creative boys are not being lost to the gene pool.

    Reply

  3. Huh!

    Scroll down a bit on that thread and see who got there first.

    Yes, that right. ‘English Bloke’. Thats me – that it is.

    I even acknowledged seeing the adhd-creativity link on your blog!

    You people. What are you like?

    If you need any other problems solving just let me know. ;^)

    Reply

  4. @bruce – interesting! thnx for the pointer.

    @bob – unless they don’t reproduce as well ’cause their creativity is stiffled and, therefore, the womens don’t choose to mate with them as frequently as they would’ve otherwise.

    Reply

  5. Although you probably know this already, Ötzi the Iceman, the well-preserved 5,300 year old mummy found in 1991 in the Ötztal Alps, between Austria and Italy, had tattoos which corresponded with acupuncture/acupressure points whcih would be used to treat the medical conditions that radiological examination of his bones showed that he suffered from.

    If so, this is at least 2000 years before their previously known earliest use in China.

    Maybe acupuncture isn’t as Chinese as we tend to think it is.

    Quite possibly, gunpowder was cooked up in a Merlin/Gandalf sort of way by the “Witches of Subeshi” (4th or 3rd century BCE), who wore 2-foot-long (0.61 m) black felt conical hats with a flat brim.

    See here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman

    And here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies

    Or am I being too Euro-centric?

    Reply

  6. i had some acupuncture done once. a friend recommended it, and a friend of hers, who was a practitioner, did the actual acupuncturing.

    didn’t hurt, but it didn’t do anything for me either. mind you, i had no health complaints so there wasn’t really anything to treat. (~_^)

    Reply

  7. Asians are showing dominance in American fashion design from out of nowhere. I believe Asians have the best visual arts creativity of the races.

    “In quick succession, three men were called to the stage to accept their awards as the best new designers of the year: Richard Chai for men’s wear, Jason Wu for women’s wear and Alexander Wang for accessories.

    It was the first time that all three prizes given by the Council of Fashion Designers of America were awarded to designers who are Asian-American. That same night, the fashion council announced three scholarships, each for $25,000, won by student designers of Asian heritage.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574401320419023870.html

    Reply

  8. ADHD incidentally is expressed in particular households, primarily ones that lack two parents. Other environmental factors factor into this disorder as well. I have also yet to see hard statistics on ADHD being much less prevalent in Asians as part of a genetic. Rather than that, a gene “associated” with ADHD is less frequent and therefore ADHD is less frequent is the idea.

    Other than that, implying that ADHD is responsible for the broad range of creativity is ridiculous. Nothing verifies that other than a vague statement that ADHD students are more creative.

    If one looks at the assessment of the most innovative countries as described by the EIU,

    http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Cisco_Innovation_Methodology.pdf

    ranking Japan as the most innovative.

    The most creative sector of society, ones in hightech, are overflowing with asian-americans. Creativity is a necessity for certain fields of engineering, quite a bit of mathematics, and of which are teeming with asians.

    But whatever, HBD is primarily a soft-white-supremacy crowd anyways so evidence should only fit one specific stream.

    Reply

  9. @anonymous – “The most creative sector of society, ones in hightech, are overflowing with asian-americans. Creativity is a necessity for certain fields of engineering, quite a bit of mathematics, and of which are teeming with asians.”

    sure. but the question of why east asians aren’t more creative has more to do with the fact that they didn’t come up with most of the modern world’s greatest inventions, whereas european MEN mostly did.

    yeah, the japanese, of course, are doin’ great in all sorts of very technical fields now ’cause of their high average iq, but europeans had to introduce all the high-tech stuff to them first. which makes one ask, ‘sup with that? why with such high iqs weren’t the japanese (or some other east asian group) leagues ahead technologically a long time ago?

    and as far as the economist’s ranking goes — patents? meh. patents can be for all sorts of fiddly little things like a new shape of a switch or new color lightbulb (i’m exaggerating a bit, but you get my meaning).

    show me the brand new inventions|intellectual achievements that are almost unrelated to anything that went previously (thinking along the lines of splitting the atom or something like that). where are they?

    Reply

  10. Likewise if we had a time machine and went to circa 1200 AD, we can easily say the same thing of those unenlightened uncreative North Europeans and those amazing Arabs. Culture has much to do with technology as inherent biology. The Japanese and Chinese for example, banning inventions and closing off their nations, is a primer into the mentality of the ruling governments.

    Again let me state that technology isn’t some rooted biological thing. Its a process of learning and sharing. One group possessing a certain accumulation is more able to invent than a group that has none. Anyone with a basic science degree and traces the history of science would know that.

    Patents are not the sole criteria. Look at all the other factors in the report. Dismissing patents because they can be “anything” is simply wrong. They can be quite a lot of things, but patent offices don’t blindly dole out patents. Especially since its single patents granted by three governing bodies that are examined.

    Apparently you do not know reactions are a long and hard process to have come to. It needed a wealth of knowledge for it to go experimental. Nothing has really been groundbreaking and revolutionary anymore, hasn’t been so for 60 odd years. The majority of scientific advances and inventions have been a gradual process mind you.

    I do not see how you can examine history to look at biology. Its a ridiculous assumption based on too many unexamined factors.

    But objective examination of evolutionary biology isn’t too alive in the “HBD” sphere except for Razib and to a degree Sailer, Its rather a group of white supremacists using science as a veil for their agendas.

    Reply

  11. @anonymous – “HBD is primarily a soft-white-supremacy crowd anyways so evidence should only fit one specific stream.”

    “Its rather a group of white supremacists using science as a veil for their agendas.”

    oooooooooooooh — i get it! you’re calling me a white supremist!

    ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! that’s funny.

    you know, calling people that is like calling someone a waaaaaycist nowadays — very passé.

    Reply

  12. > Likewise if we had a time machine and went to circa 1200 AD, we can easily say the same thing of those unenlightened uncreative North Europeans and those amazing Arabs. Culture has much to do with technology as inherent biology

    Both groups may well have undergone evolution over periods like a few centuries. Not to mention that the amazing Arabs and primitive N Euros of 1200 may be partly PC-mythological; the two civs may have been rather equal in their accomplishments. N Euros built the extremely impressive Charlemagne Cathedral in Aachen around 950, if I’m not mistaken (not sure when the current interior was put it). Before that, their (surviving) art was much weaker, no doubt. There are only a few pieces at all impressive, and these certainly don’t compare to Greek, Hebrew, or Egyptian art in their respective primes. Again, they may have undergone evolution. Cultural changes (above all, improved agricultural techniques) due to their exposure to Rome could be a cause of evolution; continued evolution of their domestic organisms, if that happened over the relevant period, could also have caused them to evolve. But it’s certainly possible that their artistic attainment improved for mostly non-biological reasons. After all, for one thing, they had been illiterates before (roughly) the Völkerwanderung and the interactions with the decaying Roma, which makes it hard to develop a sophisticated tradition of artistic technique.

    It’s striking how high-civ and hegemony have moved NW over time. Mesopotamia to Egypt and Israel to Greece to Rome to Carolingia/France to England. This could be a coincidence or it could be that civs kind of lose some of their creative intensity after a few centuries of riding high (for reasons that may be bio-evolutionary). If so, one could counter this with eugenics and see Greek and Egyptian culture return to their bygone efflorescence – and indeed, surpass it.

    Reply

  13. @anonymous – “Patents are not the sole criteria. Look at all the other factors in the report.”

    ok. i’ve looked again at the other factors in the report and, afaics, none of them actually measure innovation. what they measure is if certain “conditions” that supposedly aid in innovation (these are defined by the economist) are present. they are:

    – R&D as a percentage of GDP
    – quality of the local research infrastructure
    – education of the workforce
    – technical skills of the workforce
    – quality of IT and communications infrastructure
    – broadband penetration
    – Political stability
    – Macroeconomic stability
    – Institutional framework
    – Regulatory environment
    – Tax regime
    – Flexibility of labour market
    – Openness of national economy to foreign investment
    – Ease of hiring foreign nationals
    – Openness of national culture to foreign influence
    – Popular attitudes towards scientific advancements
    – Access to investment finance
    – Protection of intellectual property

    yeah. like i said. none of these actually measure the number and|or types of innovations in a country.

    patents may do, but like i said the other day, the total number of patents doesn’t necessarily reflect real, groundbreaking innovation. we need to know quality, not just quantity.

    are we talking about patents like for baran’s digital packets? or are we talking about patents for office gym exercise kits?

    Reply

  14. It has to do with all the land, resources, and free labor (slavery) that the whites had stolen from Non whites. One has far more time and support to advance science and technology when one is riding on the backs of others. The Chinese were not barbarous enough to do that and their civilization did not advance as rapidly because they did not have a huge head start from stealing from others.

    Before European colonization, they were barely literate people who did not even think to have underground sewer systems and used their streets as sewers.

    Reply

  15. > That’s about right – creativity correlates with ‘Psychoticism’
    > (on which personality trait dimension ADHD would be high);
    > but high level creative accomplishment (‘genius’) also needs
    > very high IQ.

    Oh please. Eysenck’s Psychoticism scale is a piddly hodgepodge of items with little to do with one another:

    * Ray, J.J. (1986). “Internal Inconsistency in the Eysenck Psychoticism Scale.” The Journal of Psychology, 1986, 121(6), 635-636. http://jonjayray.tripod.com/intp.html

    “(T)he mean interitem correlation for the P Scale was .04. The items, then, have very little in common.”

    And it turns out that hodgepodge of traits the hodgepodge of items measures consists of low Emotionality, low Agreeableness, low Conscientiousness, and low Honesty-Humility:

    * Dunlop P.D., Morrison D.L., Koenig J., and Silcox, B.Y. (2011). “Comparing the Eysenck and HEXACO Models of Personality in the Prediction of Adult Delinquency.” European Journal of Personality, DOI: 10.1002/per.

    “Self and peer reported Psychoticism correlated strongly and negatively with Emotionality (rs = -.54, rp = -.43, both p<.01), Conscientiousness (rs = -.41, rp = -.53, both p<.01) and Honesty–Humility (rs =- .31, rp = -.46, both p<.01). Interestingly, a large difference was observed between the self and peer correlations between Psychoticism and Agreeableness (rs = -.16, ns, vs. rp = -.41, p < .01)."

    Aaaand then we have the finding that it's Honesty-Humility, and not the rest of the junk, which is responsible for relationships regarding Psychoticism and creativity:

    Cantankerous Creativity: Honesty–Humility, Agreeableness, and the HEXACO structure of creative achievement

    Silva, Paul et al. (2011). "Cantankerous Creativity: Honesty–Humility, Agreeableness, and the HEXACO structure of creative achievement." Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 51, Issue 5, October 2011, Pages 687–689

    "A sample of 1304 adults completed the HEXACO-60 and several measures of creative achievement and activities. Latent variable models found that Agreeableness had no relationship with creativity, but Honesty–Humility did: people lower in Honesty–Humility had higher creativity scores, consistent with past work on arrogance and pretentiousness among creative people."

    Course Openness is a bigger correlate of creativity, but then again the P-E-N model was completely lacking that dimension. All in all, Eysenck was super awesome, but getting bitchslapped by bargain basement psychologist J. J. Ray was a bad sign. Seriously, Eysenck's personality theory was pretty much limited to arrows a guy could draw on a board. "What? Five dimensions of personality? Nobody knows how to use the right hand rule to take a cross product in five dimensions! Nobody!!" Personally I feel that if there were anything to make the dead rise and shoot fire out of their mouths, it would be the finding that even Neuroticism didn't survive the transition from five to six factors of personality.

    Reply

  16. ‘Seriously’ Mark, I build my science on the work of people whose competence and honesty I have evaluated – not on the intemperate and slangy outpourings of unknown internet commenters who may know a bit about stats but whose motivations (aside from status-seeking) are unclear.

    You think Psychoticism is refuted because modern personality psychologists say it is refuted? – but then I don’t rate modern personality psychology highly.

    What I would say is that the P scale omits direct questions on the ‘psychotic’ aspect of psychoticism, which is a fault, and that it requires supplemetation with something like a schizotypy scale.

    But self-rating scales are from from the whole story.

    I’m interested in the problem, not in what funding-oriented careerist drones (i.e. 99 percent of modern scientist) have to say on the subject.

    Since there hasn’t been anybody remotely approaching Eysenck’s stature, and with his motivation, in the field since he died, I’m not going to chuck-out what he said without good reason – fashion is not a good reason, neither is micro-specialized technical quibbling.

    Reply

  17. > I build my science on the work of people whose competence and
    > honesty I have evaluated

    You evaluate scientific work on the reputation of people who produce, propose, and promote it, rather than on its own merits. This doesn’t strike you as problematic?

    > – not on the intemperate and slangy outpourings of unknown

    What is wrong with you? We’re arguing on the website of a blogger who uses awesome words like “prolly,” and you complain about me being intemperate and slangy? You’re lucky I didn’t *facepalm* *doublefacepalm* your post. (Ouch. Now THAT would sting.)

    > internet commenters who may know a bit about stats but whose motivations
    > (aside from status-seeking) are unclear.

    I’m schmoozing with hpg chick. She is cuter than you.

    > You think Psychoticism is refuted because modern personality psychologists
    > say it is refuted? – but then I don’t rate modern personality psychology highly.

    Look, if you’d like to read over what I gave you in the last post, you might notice that it supports Eysenck’s contention that his P-scale measures creativity by showing that an element of it (low Honesty-Humility) does predict creativity. Of course, this doesn’t mean that his P-scale was very good. Even if you can’t “refute” it, you can definitely call a scale’s reliability or validity into question, on the basis of things like

    * Its failure to correctly sort out psychotics from criminals (who outscore psychotics in Psychoticism)
    * Its extreme response bias, where people who score in the mean are far above the median
    * Its failure to correlate consistently with ideology (tough-mindedness scores)
    * Its low reliability (as already demonstrated)
    * It’s factorial complexity (splitting into multiple dimensions under factor analysis)

    All of which was known decades before Eysenck’s death and can hardly be considered “modern.”

    > Since there hasn’t been anybody remotely approaching Eysenck’s stature,
    > and with his motivation, in the field since he died

    You are right. It is a d*mn shame. Eysenck was brilliant. I can’t count how many of his books I’ve read, when other researchers like Jensen, Herrnstein, Inglehart, and anyone else in the soft sciences hasen’t made me want to read more than about two. Hans Eysenck was an inexhaustible fountain of scientific progress, and the world is a much better place for the accident that made him a psychologist.

    When he was alive, Eysenck boasted as a teacher that there was no Eysenckian school. He always insisted that his students should remain critical of his own theories as well as of everybody else’s. You talk about stature as though it means something, but it doesn’t, and your using his reputation to brush away criticism of his theories would bother him in ways that Lexical research wouldn’t. Please don’t make Eysenck into another Freud.

    > I’m not going to chuck-out what he said without good reason
    > – fashion is not a good reason, neither is micro-specialized
    > technical quibbling.

    Low interitem correlations, factorial complexity, extreme response bias, and poor validity are not technical quibbling: they are the characteristics one uses to evaluate a bad psychometric inventory. If a salesman told you that your refusal to buy a car on the basis of its low gas mileage, unreliability, and poor safety ratings was “micro-specialized technical quibbling,” how would you respond?

    (I’m thinking *quadruple facepalm,* but that might require taking off my shoes and frankly when I go out to buy a car I’d rather not have to kick myself in the head until the negotiation phase is nearing its completion.)

    Reply

  18. “Hmmm, a gene that might link it all together. I do think there is somethign genetic in humans that gives su that ‘why’ spark.”

    The thing is they *were* so it seems to me to be more likely something they lost.

    I think there are three factors in creativity
    – brains
    – aggression*
    – thinking-outside-the-boxness (for want of a better phrase)

    I think aggression gets pacified out of a population over time with NW Euros having an advantage from 13th Century onwards for MRB reasons (More Recently Barbarian) as a result of the later arrival of high density agriculture.

    I think high levels of thinking-outside-the-boxness may be a side-effect of the outbreeding created by the north euro marriage model. If correct then countries like Japan and Korea should move into a phase of greater creativity n years after they adopted the model where n = “who knows” but could potentially be now-ish (also separately that most of the innovation in Indian history will have come from within those castes that practise maximal exogamy within the caste).

    Reply

  19. Of course there are creative east asians! How else would you explain all of the artwork and statues and masterpieces that are ming vases, ect ect. All races are the same, and creativity can be found from every one of them, don’t forget that we’re all human beings, and we’re all born from the same make. I think you’ve never just met a creative asian. Also, it makes me sad that your post was from 2011, because you’re probably never get to read this reply. Since you’re “Creative” you probably wont have the time to check all of your old posts. Pft.

    , east asian guy

    Reply

  20. @anonymous – “How else would you explain all of the artwork and statues and masterpieces that are ming vases, ect ect.”

    i wasn’t referring to vases and the like but the bigger stuff like space travel and the discovery of genetics.

    @anonymous – “it makes me sad that your post was from 2011, because you’re probably never get to read this reply. Since you’re ‘Creative’ you probably wont have the time to check all of your old posts.”

    i read and take note of all comments (except for the spam) — even the rude ones.

    Reply

  21. I have long supposed that the difference lies in historic systems of agriculture.

    Civilizations that have grown around rice tend to have very characteristic traits; extremely dense populations and high levels of conformity.

    Rice farming benefits from very high levels of manpower and requires coordinated group efforts. It doesn’t leave too much room for individuals going off and doing their own thing.

    Additionally, the huge populations fostered by rice cultures leave little to no room for error on the individual level. Human life becomes very cheap and there’s just no room for the trial and error required to make something new.

    Rice cultures tend to breed super-specialists at rote tasks.
    Even in ancient China, civil service exams selected for people who could best memorize Confucian texts and execute fancy calligraphy according to ritualized rules. Asian education remains pretty much the same to the present day.

    My experience is that East Asians are the best at mastering specific tasks. The more precision required, the more it fires them up.
    That’s why you’ll see they do well in sports like golf and dominate piano and violin competitions.
    But it’s rare you’ll ever see them as notable composers!

    In the tech sector the founders and CEOs are whites but they hire Asians.
    They already do the thinking, so they bring in H1B types to carry out the execution because they’re better at it while being docile and obedient.

    Whites are less focused by temperament, less effective at highly specialized precision tasks, they’re unruly individuals with an annoying habit of asking questions.

    The difference is Euros not only relied on less manpower intensive wheat, oats, and rye as staples, they never completely moved away from their roots as barbarian herders, keeping dairy cows around to the present day.

    Euros happened to arrive at a good balance between the discipline and specialization of settled peoples and the wildness and spontaneity of nomads.

    Reply

  22. Asians have a lack of internal phenotypic diversity in personality and believe they have mainly selected the trace ”pragmatism” (The opposite of creative processes, which half the time are recreational culturally, philosophically speaking, aims to give meaning to life) . It is evident that creativity is related to the incidence of mental disorders. Not necessarily with its most serious form , but their presence in the population . It is the famous balanced polymorphism , the theory Marian Anett to explain the existence of left-handed people as a minority in all human societies . The same can be said about mental disorders . An excess of schizophrenic personality tends to be extremely damaging to individual well -being, but the relatives with the disease , can inherit instead of two genes , only one copy of the allele and thus benefit from a slightly higher doses of imaginative capacity . It is an example and this can be replicated for most mental disorders .
    I’m writing the text that speak of the process of socialization often suffocating , as less beneficial ( altruism networks ) and more like the role of reducing the individual expression , which significantly reduces creativity .
    If Asians are selecting traits , basically a kind of pragmatic and docile personality, then it is very likely that the genes responsible for high creativity were kicked out to the genetic pool.
    I Determined that there are four specific types of cultural human beings, predominantly right-brain and left-brain oriented (the subjective-dogmatic tribe), shallow man or herd mentality (extremely adaptable, reduced complexity and cognitive diversity and increased physical fitness ) and independent (in my opinion the rarest and most special among them, hihihihihi)
    So I induce that Asians mostly selected the type of shallow” man”, who despises dogmatism of the tribes left and right oriented, precisely because of its extreme pragmatism. These people first, lost much of cognitive complexity, but on the other hand, increased general intelligence and adaptive capacity. There must have been a coincidence that Galton suggested that the Chinese colonize the tropics.
    I also suggested that the human being is a type that is keen to give emphasis, to recreational situations, more than any other species (in my opinion), then this factor would indicate that we are naturally deviant beings, the designs that nature touts for all land animals, reproductive success and reduced costs recreational aiming objectivism, ie spread the genes.
    No other race could do this as well, at least in quantity (at least on surface extension) than Asians. In bio-natural terms, they are in fact the most evolved. But long ago that European Caucasoid determined that humanity should be extremely the opposite of nature, or at least, very different. Leftism is only the evolution of bio-culture Caucasoid essentially individualistic, not paradoxically, selfish and narcissistic.

    Reply

  23. It is very clear to me these depressing comments of this leftoid people , with mental problems , the authoritarian personality to impose his thought to others just like spoiled children , they are .
    two facts
    Asians eat dog and cat meat, simple as they tame an animal , make them completely dependent , they no see the possibility of avoiding the carnage even when these poor and beautiful creatures, clamoring for their wretched lives .
    Today China , especially since the West became a madhouse , becomes a power , and instead of waiting to cities blade runner style , what we found ?
    Improved replicas of modern Western cities . No other human force known changed both the planet than Caucasians . For better or worse stop it does not matter now . What happens is that in fact the white man holds to itself the capacity to think beyond the stars .
    There is no other more conclusive evidence of the superiority of European creative than Europe itself , gorgeous from every angle , from the villages to the big cities . Now compare with Asian countries . They are so fond of his past that has no pity on demolishing it to build a mall , of course , a mall and not a sho – ping .

    The main factor that determines the high creativity (genius level) is the sense of aesthetics, beauty, ability to identify and reproduce explicit and implicit that suggest beauty standards.
    I’m sorry, but if Asians really were these fantastic beings, they would not have selected their Asian women the way they did. What is the reproductive advantage of keeping beautiful women as a minority?
    The aesthetic sense of beauty is also based on traits of narcissism, still do not know why, but this came inside.
    Everything in Asia is down since a long time to pragmatism, that is fast, efficient and objective thinking.
    All in Europe or the West comes down (more and not exclusivelly) to subjectivism or recreational thinking (imagination materialized) and as a result also leads to beauty, because is recreational and aesthetic is also invariably subjective.

    Reply

  24. […] ”Roubei” este texto da Hbd Chick para pincelar sobre um achado muito interessante, encontrado pelos geneticistas. A quase inexistência dos genes que predispõe para TDAH na Ásia Oriental e especialmente na China. Eu conheço uma menina com esta condição e até mesmo poderia me classificar como borderline para déficit de atenção e hiperatividade. A garotinha, além de hiper ativa, como não haveria de ser e com ”déficit de atenção”, idem (dur!), também é muito divertida, altamente sociável e criativa. Um pouco diferente dela, eu sou um tipo instável, que vai desde o comportamento hiper normal ( o nerd chato e ou perfeccionista) até em direção às constantes ”crises” abençoadas de loucura, seja para a melancolia, seja para a euforia e especialmente neste segundo caso, o meu lado bem humorado aflora quase que imediatamente, ao ponto que, o geralmente tímido Santoculto aqui, poderia até mesmo fazer shows de stand-up, jogando a introversão totalmente para escanteio. :) […]

    Reply

  25. @HBDchick Needham researched Chinese Science and inventions, and concluded its likely over half of the modern worlds ideas originated from China, While Rushton stated East Asians have been ahead of Europeans throughout most of history, and Europeans only recently pulled ahead in the last 300 years,calling it an anomaly.

    Countries like Japan couldn’t contribute a great deal to civilization, due to their lack of natural resources and isolation from the rest of the world. However things seem to changing for them, over the last 40 or 50 years they have been competing at the same level as whites.

    “show me the brand new inventions|intellectual achievements that are almost unrelated to anything that went previously (thinking along the lines of splitting the atom or something like that). where are they?”


    Reply

  26. >REFUTED

    Joseph Renzulli’s (1978) “three ring” definition of giftedness is one frequently mentioned conceptualization of giftedness. Renzulli’s definition, which defines gifted behaviors rather than gifted individuals, is composed of three components as follows: Gifted behavior consists of behaviors that reflect an interaction among three basic clusters of human traits—above average ability, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity.[10] Individuals capable of developing gifted behavior are those possessing or capable of developing this composite set of traits and applying them to any potentially valuable area of human performance. Persons who manifest or are capable of developing an interaction among the three clusters require a wide variety of educational opportunities and services that are not ordinarily provided through regular instructional programs.

    While White students represent the majority of students enrolled in gifted programs, Black and Hispanic students constitute a percentage less than their enrollment in school.[30] For example, statistics from 1993 indicate that in the U.S., Black students represented 16.2% of public school students, but only constituted 8.4% of students enrolled in gifted education programs. Similarly, while Hispanic students represented 9% of public school students, these students only represented 4.7% of those identified as gifted.[31] However, Asian students make up only 3.6% of the student body, yet constitute 14% in the gifted programs.

    In a plenary address at the annual Congress of the American National Association for Gifted Children in November 1985, Sternberg reported that the number of students of Asian background in American programmes for gifted children exceeded the normative expectations from population figures by a factor of five. Entrance to programmes for gifted children in the U.S. is usually set at a level to accommodate moderately gifted children rather than the highly or exceptionally gifted; thus an interesting pattern seems to be developing an over-representation of Asian children by a factor of five in the population of moderately gifted students and by a considerably greater factor-15 or over among the exceptionally gifted. A student has to be extremely gifted mathematically to score more than 700 on the SAT-M by the age of 13; only 4 per cent of college-bound 17 and 18 year olds in the U.S. attain such a score!

    To illustrate this point: in a normal population with a mean IQ of 100, and a standard deviation of 15, 228 children in every 10,000 would have an IQ score two standard deviations above the mean, that is, a score of IQ 130 or higher. However, with a mean shift upwards of half a standard deviation, as reported by Jensen for Asian Americans, no fewer than 668 children in 10,000 would score in the IQ 130+ range. Many American gifted programmes which employ an IQ criterion for entrance set their entry level at IQ 130; in this situation, 6.68 per cent of Asian children would be eligible to enter these programmes on the basis of IQ as opposed to only 2.28 per cent of Caucasian children-an overrepresentation by a factor of 2.93. Yet Sternberg reports an overrepresentation by a factor of 5! Why do American gifted programmes contain almost twice the number of Asians than could be statistically expected from Jensen’s projections. The children of this study have scored at or above IQ 160 on the Standford-Binet Intelligence Test L-M, an instrument with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation fo 16. Thus these children score at least 3.75 standard deviations above the mean. Fewer than 9 children in 100,000 score at or beyond this level. However, if we shift the mean upwards by 0.5 of a standard deviation, to investigate the implications of Jensen’s findings and if we assume the standard deviation for the Asian population to be the same as that for non-Asians, then the criterion score of IQ 160 for entrance to this study becomes only 3.25 standard deviations above the new mean. Beyond this point lie not 9, but 58, children in 100,000. If Jensen’s findings regarding a higher Asian mean are correct, and if they hold good for the Asian-Australian population as well as Asian-Americans, then we could expect to find Asian-Australians over-represented in the study by a factor of 6.5. Yet the over-representation actually found id an astonishing 15.6!

    Reply

  27. Pretty pictures from the book on Chinese inventions -Anonymous’s post on 06/16/2014 at 6:02 AM .
    I have only one question. If they were developed several hundred to a couple of thousand years before other areas, why did the NW Europeans take over? With a lead of up to 2K years, that should have been enough to get to the moon in the 1500’s or earlier. I’m not disputing the data, questioning what it means – did the invention of agriculture change the genes and breed out for lack of a better word curiosity?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s