Kanazawa: Asians can't do science
It's often said - even by occasional commenters at this blog - that the U.S. needs high IQ immigrants to stay competitive, we whites evidently not being either smart or creative enough to be competitive on our own. In that regard I found, via Steve Hsu, an exchange between the evolutionary psychologists Geoffrey Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa. Kanazawa seems to enjoy being provocative, and this (pdf) is what he said about Asians and their ability to do science:
Abstract: For cultural, social, and institutional reasons, Asians cannot make original contributions to basic science. I therefore doubt Miller's prediction for the Asian future of evolutionary psychology. I believe that its future will continue to be in the United States and Europe. [...]Whoa! Kanazawa validates a few stereotypes too:
1. Asians can't think
And they certainly cannot think outside the box. Miller is correct to point out that East Asians have slightly higher mean IQs than Europeans (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002). However, East Asians have not been able to make creative use of their intelligence. While they are very good at absorbing existing knowledge via rote memory (hence their high standardized test scores in math and science) or adapt or modify existing technology (hence their engineering achievements), they have not been able to make original contributions to basic science. [...]
This problem has long been known to East Asian specialists as the "creativity problem" (Eberts and Eberts, 1995, pp. 123-127; Taylor, 1983, pp. 92-123; van Wolferen, 1989, pp. 89-90). Some argue that the ideographic Asian languages curb abstract thinking and creativity among Asians (Hannas, 2003). [...]
2. Asians can't write
Nor can they speak English. While Miller correctly points out that East Asians have slightly higher overall IQs, he neglects to mention the particular pattern of Asian intelligence. East Asians have much higher visualization IQ than verbal IQ (Lynn, 2006, pp. 121-148). For East Asians in Asia, in studies which assess both types of IQ, the mean visualization IQ is 108.6 while the mean verbal IQ is 101.4. Their high visualization IQs explain East Asians' relative success in mathematics and mathematics-based sciences such as physics and chemistry. Of the 27 Nobel prizes awarded to Asians in Table 1, 10 have been in physics, 5 in chemistry, and 3 in physiology or medicine; there have only been 5 Nobel literature prizes awarded to Asians, and 1 in economics (Amartya K. Sen).
4. The conformist culture of AsiaI merely pass this along.
Part of the reason why Asians cannot think for themselves and make original and creative contributions to science is because they are too conformist. One of the factors that Miller identifies as a possible obstacle to the Asian future of evolutionary psychology ("academic conservatism") is actually fatal. Scientific revolutions happen by challenging the established paradigms. No conformists have ever brought about a scientific revolution.
Once again, 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.
posted by Dennis Mangan @ 8:55 AM
39 comments
39 Comments:
East Asians have much higher visualization IQ than verbal IQ
They why can't they drive. Just kidding ... well , sort of.
You might be interested in my article Beyond IQ.
Racial differences haven't been investigated to the extent that they should've been for obvious reasons.
I merely pass this along
What did you think of Miller's response to Kanazawa?
Kanazawa has a bit of poseur about himself. Anyway, he doesn't explain how are asians capable of developing, like creatin gumpowder, or inventing the decimal numbers
maybe an inventive asian would post his contribution under the name of other famed scholar?
It seems to me after a cursory reading that ultimately Miller is right, but as I hinted above, I think Kanazawa's willingness to smash some idols and say what almost no one else will say is refreshing. In my own reading, I've come across lots of quite competent Japanese medical research, for instance; whether Asians in general are capable of Nobel level science is another story, but I doubt that that matters much. BTW, T aka Ricky raw, I've read your blog on several occasions and find you to be an excellent writer with loads of interesting things to say.
Richard Hoste: You also have a very interesting site that I'll have to spend a lot more time going through.
Creativity is overrated.
Can't believe you left this out:
"Our true obstacle is not the Christian fundamentalism in the wheat fields of Kansas; it is the political correctness in the ivy-covered buildings on our own campuses. The feminists and social constructionists, all of whom have Ph.D.s and no problems with the theory of evolution by natural selection (as long as it is not applied to the human brain), are in a position to do far greater damage to our science than the Christian fundamentalists. Really, what can Christian fundamentalists do to us? Refuse to pump our gas? Spit in our Big Mac? In contrast, our politically correct feminist and social constructionist colleagues control our recruitment, tenure, and promotion processes, and influence our research funding. If anything can interfere with the future of evolutionary psychology in the United States and Europe, it is the cultural insanity of political correctness. That is the true enemy that we must fight."
Well said.
I recall reading this exchange some time ago. Based on experience, I think Asians are plenty smart and will be making the bulk of scientific advancements going forward. Whether such advancements are profound or merely incremental, does not make much difference for they are still advancements.
Asians excel in stable, predictable environments where their strong process-orientation and perfectionism produce a never-ending series of incremental advancements. Asians do less well in environments of constant change. We can thus assume that, in established fields of inquiry, Asians will dominate going forward.
One tangential factor leading to Asian dominance will be the complete devotion to diversity in the West, which essentially entails forsaking the true, weirdo geniuses of our society. Take away our weirdos, by focusing on the less talented and by selecting college students and employees based on social measures and not pure talent, and we are not so special. The magic of the West is the rare man who struggles to overcome some type of personality disorder while managing a brilliant intellect. This struggle, and the associated bipolarity, is what produces the great works of science and art. It is the raw passion of the mania. A good society will capture that mania and shuttle that energy forward. Unfortunately, we are no longer a society that can celebrate genius because too often genius comes in the wrong color. Instead we are forced to act as if some intellectual lightweight like Sonya Sotomayor is special when in fact many of us had far superior intellects by age 14.
The West is dead. Make as much money as you can and prepare for a different life into the future. We are screwed. There is no hope for traditional America. Whites cannot compete with Asians in a mixed race world; we are too different in psychology and physiological impulse and need a different progression track; we are too out-group favoring and will adopt every policy that is contra-white interests in an effort to show our accepting nature.
I was pretty sure Kanazawa was being sarcastic with this piece on Asian creativity.
When someone complains about the lack of scientific drive among white Americans, they mean to not directly promote Asian immigration but promote HB1 immigration.
The HB1 visas to India or sometimes China or Russia are absolutely unnecessary. How can these greedy CEOs claim to have an American talent shortage when they in fact FIRE Americans to hire
HB1s.
Each year at least a hundred thousand Indians with tech degrees from an IIT or wherever are imported. Job growth in STEM fields is basically non-existent so these people replace us. Often times Indians are TRAINED BY THE AMERICAN THEY ARE REPLACING to do their job!
I see this happening in Medicine too. Foreign/Asian doctors flooding the US from the middle east or India or even Africa. Oh yes we need these people...
"we are too out-group favoring and will adopt every policy that is contra-white interests in an effort to show our accepting nature."
No, a tiny percentage of whites are, and they just happen to set social policy. Every conservative I know is either too busy trying to make a buck, or too scared of the social consequences, to speak up, whereas every liberal I know devotes every waking second to furthering "social change".
It will take Europe and the US collapsing, and they will, in order to totally disprove liberal ideology, but once that happens whites will be back in business.
-ASDF
I know the atheists here will cringe, but there's a demonic energy on the Left that isn't there on the Right. It explains what ASDF mentioned about liberals devoting every waking second to furthering "social change".
You can't fight the Left with the tactics of the Left, because the Right (for the most part) doesn't have that diabolical energy, and so those tactics fail. That's why the GOP is the Stupid Party.
How about a relentlessly, brutal, blunt anti-Leftism / illiberalism?
I think Kanazawa is basically correct, in the sense that I agree with Hans Eysenck that genius levels of creativity requires a rare combination of very high intelligence with moderately high levels of the personality trait of 'psychoticism' (which includes a fair bit of antisocial stuff such as selfishness and implusivity together with a semi-psychotic mode of associative thinking).
(references supporting this can be found at: http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-are-modern-scientists-so-dull.html )
However as an explanation of East Asian versus European achievements this is still unproven, because there are at present no validated methods of measuring personality between cultures (the usual method of self-rating questionnaires doesn't work between cultures). But I would be confident that East Asians are much lower than Europeans in psychoticism (or, which is almost the same, that they are higher in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness).
The big question relates to the importance of genius in propelling the continuous growth which characterizes modernizing societies. I keep changing my mind about this - at present I suspect that genius is absolutely crucial to economic and technological growth - and one of the main reasons for current problems is that either genius is disappearing from populations or else is being prevented from having influence (because of the over structured, over-bureacratic nature of developed societies). At any rate we don't see much full blooded genius anymore (although, interestingly, Geoffrey Miller himself is pretty close to being a genius IMHO).
In science it seems that progress comes from a very few people - and if there aren't such people, I think maybe progress will grind to a halt or go into reverse (maybe this has already happened, pretty much?)
And perhaps the same applies to the economy?
I suspect that without geniuses to propel growth in technology (in a broad sense of the term), societies tend to set in concrete (like ancient China) or else just stay in a state of permanent chaos.
It's interesting that the original question that Miller was trying to answer is "should we focus on exporting evolutionary psychology to Asia, in order to ensure its prominence there and, hence, our prominence as evolutionary psychologists?"
An off-the-wall, creative question posed by a white American leads to a pragmatic, traditionalist Asian response. Life imitates art?
Of course it's typical of whites, especially white college professors, for Miller to basically hypothesize that "White people are obsolete". It's funny that an Asian guy has to come along and say "No, you guys are great!"
Miller, typical of white college professors, also thinks the biggest obstacle to American progress is dull-witted fundamentalist Christian fanaticism. He dismisses political correctness offhand by claiming that only 1% of his students respond that they are politically "far left". That sounds about right, considering even uber-Marxist Obama calls himself a "centrist". There really isn't much room to the left of that. If the people of America were aware of how far Left the political "center" has shifted, they might rethink their party loyalties.
Kidding aside, though, it's interesting that Miller does not give any consideration to South America or Africa in terms of "science-capable people" and their contributions. I wonder why that is?
--The big question relates to the importance of genius in propelling the continuous growth which characterizes modernizing societies. I keep changing my mind about this - at present I suspect that genius is absolutely crucial to economic and technological growth - and one of the main reasons for current problems is that either genius is disappearing from populations or else is being prevented from having influence (because of the over structured, over-bureacratic nature of developed societies). At any rate we don't see much full blooded genius anymore (although, interestingly, Geoffrey Miller himself is pretty close to being a genius IMHO).--
Bruce, I think the answer to where has genius gone, may reside in the growth of bureaucratic processes. If genius requires "psychoticism", then geniuses are likely incompatible with organizations and societies built upon bureaucracy and the accommodation of women and minorities. There are too many rules that are designed for average people but which likely have negative consequences for socially-weak geniuses.
As for the importance of geniuses, they are exceptionally important. As a smart guy who has made a living walking into businesses and whipping them into shape, I can say with 100% confidence that a single individual can transform an entire organization. I would assume that compared to a business exec, a scientific genius would have a much greater impact in his field of study because so many smart people would pick-up on the work. However, who has time for visionary science when their are "diversity training" sessions and "let's pretend that teamwork is the be all and end all" sessions to attend.
I would also like to see data that relates libido, sexual frustration, sperm count and testicle size to genius output. It is my contention that sexual frustration leads to greater mental acuity and fuels intellectual impulses. In this vein, a man with a brilliant intellect and with a high libido, but limited coital activity, would greatly outperform a similar man who enjoyed frequent sexual encounters. From my use of anabolics, I can say with authority that I have noticed a direct correlation between testicular "fullness" and the power of my intellect. If memory serves, there seem to have been a number of geniuses (Newton among them) who were dramatic sexual failures.
"You can't fight the Left with the tactics of the Left...
How about a relentlessly, brutal, blunt anti-Leftism / illiberalism?"
Jaz: I think you're right. We're not going to change hearts and minds. What we need to do is consolidate like-minded people geographically, and basically make up a new constitution, stating EXPLICITLY how things are going to be. And if people don't like living in a place like that, they can move to San Francisco.
-ASDF
Kanazawa seems to overstate the case re Asian creativity. Japan and Hong Kong have had creative film industries, for example, for some time (and a number of successful American movies have been remakes of films from both places), and more recently, Korea has gained some international respect for its film industry. It's true that, technologically, Asians seem to have focused more on incremental improvements than creating entirely new product categories, but this may be partly for pragmatic reasons, and there are also some notable exceptions that come to mind.
Regarding the pragmatic reasons, it's worth remembering how much more reliant the Japanese, for example, are on manufacturing than we are. When so much of your economy depends on manufacturing, isn't it safer to make a better version of a widget that's currently in demand than to try to create a whole new category of widgets?
The couple of exceptions that come to mind immediately are the Nintendo Wii, which seems to me like an outside-the-box idea for video games, and some of the robots Japan has developed (e.g., that walking Honda robot; robot cats to keep elderly people company and remind them to take their medicine; machines designed to automate some of care-taking of senior citizens that we generally use unskilled immigrant labor to do, etc.).
"The magic of the West is the rare man who struggles to overcome some type of personality disorder while managing a brilliant intellect. This struggle, and the associated bipolarity, is what produces the great works of science and art. It is the raw passion of the mania."
Really? I'm not so sure about this. I wonder if it's more myth than reality. I suspect that, more often, great works of science and art come from a lot of disciplined drudgery, but there's nothing romantic about that. So we like to focus on the marginal cases, particularly when there's an underdog element of triumphing over adversity. So, for example, John Nash gets celebrated in "A Beautiful Mind" because he's a genius who overcame mental illness. There was also that movie, the title of which I forget, about the Australian pianist who allegedly triumphed despite his mental illness. The actor who played him in the movie (Geoffrey Rush?) won an Oscar for the role, and after the success of the movie, the real-life pianist got booked on a concert tour in the U.S., where audiences soon discovered that he was actually not so great. Which shouldn't have been a surprise: being a great classical musician demands a lot of discipline in addition to passion.
Re: Moving the left to San Francisco.
That's stupid. The unfortunate problem is that cities tend to be dynamic wealth-creators, but paradoxically, attract those with leftist political sympathies, who via the policies they enact, gradually expropriate the economic surplus that enables that same dynamism. It still does not change the fact that much of that dynamism is introduced by those same people; great artists, musicians, thinkers receiving patronage from those who have already come up successfully under the existing system. Moreover, I do believe that research shows that conservatives tend to be more conformist and less creative, though more conscientious. We don't have good data on the heritability of political philosophy, either, so you could be promulgating some twisted plan where parents export their own children. No, the idea is to somehow divorce leftism from leftists, channel it into productive uses that don't chew upon themselves.
- Billare
Billare, that's your argument? That art would suffer? Good grief, where have you been for the past 50 years? The quality of art seems to be inversely correlated with the number of leftists in a society.
The wealth creators in cities are by and large conservatives, not leftists. My new society would lose absolutely nothing by banning leftists agitators of the sort that infest university campuses, or who produce mediocre at best, terrible at worst "art". I'm sure most truly creative people would be perfectly happy creating good art while not attempting to undermine the society in which they lived.
-ASDF
PS Your dumbass hit and run job on White Nationalsm on Audacious Epigone has gotten plenty of replies. Perhaps you should go there to respond instead of leaving more asinine comments here.
Two things,
1) On the subject of why there seem to be fewer geniuses in the Gauss/Euler/Newton league since the Industrial Revolution, Richard Lynn has claimed that dysgenic trends started in the West in the mid-19th century when the upper classes saw large decreases in their fertility rates.
Perhaps because Western upper classes have been having fewer children since the 19th Century then fewer geniuses per capita are being born in the West?
On a side note, Lynn claims he has evidence that there is a dysgenic trend in Northeast Asia as well.
2) How sure are psychometricians that NEAsians and Whites have the same variance in IQ distributions? How strong is the data in favor of equal variances?
Steven Hsu claims there is no notable difference in recorded IQ variance between whites and NEAsians.
I'm not sure if I believe this because if the various races developed different mean and average IQs over the past 40,000 years - among many other psychological traits - then why would the variances be the same?
"At any rate we don't see much full blooded genius anymore (although, interestingly, Geoffrey Miller himself is pretty close to being a genius IMHO)."
If that's your idea of a present day genius, you have some real low standards.
Sure, Miller is a smart guy, and he writes interesting stuff, but he hasn't produced groundbreaking, original research. He just rehashes old stuff.
Hell, Steve Sailer probably has produced more original work than the professional academic Geoffrey Miller.
ASDF,
You are a fool. I don't truck with fools, as opposed to people I merely disagree with. I will leave with you two questions, and a statement: Explain why blue states contribute more in federal taxes than they receive. Explain why white liberals tend to be, on average, more intelligent than white conservatives. Relegate these facts to your puerile theories.
Kanazawa seems to explain East Asia only. By what I see, in Kanazawa~´s metric, I would put India mid-way between whites and eastern asians in creativity
--Really? I'm not so sure about this. I wonder if it's more myth than reality. I suspect that, more often, great works of science and art come from a lot of disciplined drudgery, but there's nothing romantic about that. So we like to focus on the marginal cases, particularly when there's an underdog element of triumphing over adversity. So, for example, John Nash gets celebrated in "A Beautiful Mind" because he's a genius who overcame mental illness. There was also that movie, the title of which I forget, about the Australian pianist who allegedly triumphed despite his mental illness. The actor who played him in the movie (Geoffrey Rush?) won an Oscar for the role, and after the success of the movie, the real-life pianist got booked on a concert tour in the U.S., where audiences soon discovered that he was actually not so great. Which shouldn't have been a surprise: being a great classical musician demands a lot of discipline in addition to passion.--
I did not mean to suggest that most geniuses suffer from deep personality disorders. I meant something far less severe.
Billare: You sound like a petulant 14 year old internet warrior. My theories are perfectly sound, and you should debate them instead of changing the subject. Degenerate artists and political activists don't create wealth.
That highly intelligent whites in all-white states can play socialist and vote for Obama doesn't mean they are correct in their thinking. There are just as many highly intelligent whites in red states who vote Republican, but the average republican IQ is lowered towards the white average by the rest of the white population who also votes Republican.
-ASDF
Re Bruce G Charlton's comment: The best study of psychological differences among races is the book THE LOTUS AND THE ROBOT (1960) by Arthur Koestler. One of his discoveries is that Japanese mentally sick dont go crazy in the Western sense. Even in extreme disorders they respect social order and hierarchy, are unable for any individual or creative thought. He studied the zen and dismissed Japanese achievements: for example, no zen archer ever won any prize in any archery competition, and Japanese martial arts competitions are dominated by Dutch and other champions. Regarding the Lotus (the Hindu mind) he studied the achievements of the Yoga masters, meditation gurus, and so on, and found it was all bullshit (my word). He concluded that as bad and decaying (that was in 1960) Europe was, it was alone and no help will come from other races or cultures.
Kanazawa has a bit of poseur about himself. Anyway, he doesn't explain how are asians capable of developing, like creatin gumpowder,
According to Chinese history, gunpowder was discovered serendipitously. It wasn't a planned discovery. Guns and gunpowder are a good example of East Asians' lack of creativity. The Chinese had gunpowder for hundreds of years before Europeans, but it was left to Europeans to invent firearms.
As for mathematical discoveries, with a few exceptions, Indians get most of the credit for originality among Asians.
The problem is that creativity is rather hard to quantify. I'm not entirely confident creativity is even a single mental trait. Being a creative fashion designer may be very different from being a creative mathematician which in turn may be different from being a creative mechanical engineer. A creative chemist who can play an instrument may still be an uncreative musician. A brilliant physicist with many original ideas in his field may not be able to conjure even one novel idea when it comes to running a business.
I don't think that there are dozens or hundreds of different kinds of creativity, but I wouldn't be surprised if a good representation of creativity didn't ultimately contain two, three, or even six different axes.
I also don't think creativity is at all synonymous with g. Possessing a high g obviously helps a creative man solve problems, but I've known many bright people who just weren't very creative. Our current president is probably intelligent enough, but he doesn't seem to have an inventive policy-making bone in his body in spite of a lifelong interest in politics and social work.
They why can't they drive. Just kidding ... well , sort of.
I've also noticed that East Asians tend to be awful drivers.
"They why can't they drive. Just kidding ... well , sort of."
This is probably due to a high rate of Asians being recent immigrants from non-driving countries.
I think Kanazawa's basic hypothesis fits well with anecdotal evidence of the "Asian math robot".
@ gunsdont:
Fantastic excerpt. I think acceptance of evolution for ivory tower liberals is merely window-dressing. They only accept it as a sort of social capitol to ensure they'll be viewed as progressive and worldly. The actual implications of evolution contradict their theories all based in subjectivity and relativism.
creativity is rather hard to quantify
Not so hard. The Ancient Greeks had no teachers in anything, not in arts, not in theater (which they invented), not in political theory, astronomy, you name it. They created everything from nothing.
You can compare what they created with other contemporary peoples, say Ethruscans, Thracians, etc.
J,
According to the historians living around that era (Herodotus, Plutarch etc), the great Greek scholars were were educated in Egypt. Egypt remained the real nexus of knowledge in the West until the library of Alexandria burned down. The Greeks made plenty of original contributions to human knowledge but they hardly did so from scratch.
According to the historians living around that era (Herodotus, Plutarch etc), the great Greek scholars were were educated in Egypt.
Ridiculous - the Egyptians made very little contribution to human knowledge. Besides, Alexandria was founded after the time of Herodotus, by... Greeks. The main language of the books in the library of Alexandria - Greek. The great scholars of Alexandria - all Greek. The only somewhat important writings, other than historical documents, written in Coptic, the descendant of the ancient Egyptian language, were Christian writings.
Egypt and Mesopotamia may have predated the Greeks, but they came and went without leaving anything. Every intellectual value we have in the West was created by the Ancient Greeks.
Is anybody still building pyramids with large stone blocks? Yet even banks like to have their offices look like a marble Parthenon.
According to the historians living around that era (Herodotus, Plutarch etc), the great Greek scholars were were educated in Egypt. Egypt remained the real nexus of knowledge in the West until the library of Alexandria burned down.
And let's not forget, the Egyptians were black! So all of western knowledge was really stolen from the black man! =D
He [Koestler] concluded that as bad and decaying (that was in 1960) Europe was, it was alone and no help will come from other races or cultures.
That's cheered me up no end.
Ridiculous - the Egyptians made very little contribution to human knowledge.
The Greeks picked up a few things here and there from the Egyptians and Near Eastern civilizations, but what they did with those bits of knowledge was profound and highly creative.
A good example would be geometry. The Egyptians had to have a practical knowledge of elementary geometrical formulas in order to build the pyramids and the Greeks certainly learned what little the Egyptians had discovered. Since the Egyptians never invented an axiomatic geometry, the number of discoveries they could make always remained limited. They also derived some geometrical formulas that were simply incorrect. Without axioms, you cannot obtain proofs. You can only guess at the answers. Axiomatic mathematics is undoubtedly one of the Greeks' greatest discoveries. With axiomatic mathematics, Archimedes came close to deriving a geometrical equivalent of our modern calculus. That's a long way from the Egyptians' observations that a right square with legs lengths three and four will have a hypotenuse of five.
Alexandria was founded after the time of Herodotus, by... Greeks.
Yes, hence its name. That doesn't mean that Egypt wasn't a nexus of knowledge prior. They had a great civilization and tons of accumulated knowledge. The Greeks just built their library there for a reason.
Ridiculous - the Egyptians made very little contribution to human knowledge.
Well, maybe that is something you can debate about with Plutarch in the Elysian Fields. According to him (and Herodotus), Pythagoras and others went to Egypt to be educated by the priestly caste in their "wisdom". Both earthly wisdom such as mathematics, and religious concepts such as transmigration.
A civilization doesn't build what the Egyptians did without relatively advanced knowledge of mathematical concepts. There's no need to belittle them. The Greeks were a great civilization also, surpassing prior ones. It is just well documented that early ancient greek scholars traveled abroad for their education to places like Memphis in Egypt.
Is anybody still building pyramids with large stone blocks? Yet even banks like to have their offices look like a marble Parthenon.
Not with stone blocks, but obelisks have remained quite popular, from the Washington monument to your local cemetary. But yes, the Parthenon was a beautiful structure. I share your admiration for the Greeks.
The Greeks just built their library there for a reason
duh! the greek lords of Egypt were .the wealthiest greek sovereigns in the history ofthe Hellenic world. Sparta, Athens, they were all to poor to engage in the massive cultural/artistic projects that only the huge resources of Egypt allowed. Also, the massive wealth of Egypt allowed the existance of a huge "lazy" class of intelectuals, which was probably even more important for the establishment of the Library.
While an atheist myself, I have to say that the forces behind Political Correctness are not Christian in nature or origin. People have been brainwashed into an avoidance of stating the truth, and that truth is that the major force behind PC dogma and enforcement are the (always in public denial) West hating "Zionists", secular or otherwise. All of this is conducted for their gain and to cripple "the other" who they eternally see as an enemy. Things are building to a point where they will have to explode or collapse. Other way, it will not be good for these hypocrites. These knuckleheads resort to calling anyone who points out the origins of Political Correctness "nazis" and other baloney. Those types of charges are starting to lose their steam, which is a good thing.
As far as the efforts of Asians in science goes, having worked with many, they seem to have a real problem with outside of the box thinking, unlike the "white" (yes, including Jews - it's the Zionists whom I mentioned earlier) IT people I've been associated with. I think it's a genetically based cognitive difference, as Asians do have a high percentage of individuals with great ability in mathematics - although if you look at where Asians go in math, most of them cluster in applied mathematics, staying away from other, more "abstract" areas.
Post a Comment
<< Home