Syngman Rhee in 1905 and later South Korea’s first
president (1948-1960). Though born into a rural family of modest means, he was
of yangban and even royal lineage
(source).
Why is mean IQ higher in East Asia than elsewhere?
Ron Unz (2013) sees the key cause in a scarcity of land and women that
continually condemned the lower classes to reproductive extinction,
particularly among the farmers who made up most of China’s population. If a
lineage remained poor for two generations in a row, it would die out and be
replaced by downwardly mobile individuals from higher up on the social ladder.
There was thus strong selection for men with enough business smarts to avoid
poverty and amass enough assets to get married and have a family.
This model of selection seems valid for the Chinese
but less so for the Koreans and the Japanese, whose strong class divisions
should have impeded upward and downward mobility. Why, then, do these two other
populations display similarly high mean IQ? As Unz (2013) notes:
Both the Japanese and the Koreans
have done remarkably well in their economic and technological advancement, and
also as small immigrant racial minorities in America and elsewhere. However,
there is no evidence that rural life in either country had any of the major features
possibly so significant for Chinese history, such as a total lack of feudal
caste structure, an exceptionally commercialized system of agricultural
production and land tenure, and the massive universal downward mobility due to
equal division of property among male heirs.
Stripped down to its basics, the Clark-Unz model of selection
has three key elements:
1. Class differences that reflect differences in
intellectual performance.
2. A higher level of reproductive success in higher
social classes than in lower ones.
3. No barriers to downward social mobility. The
lower classes are thus gradually replaced by people of higher social
origin.
But surely these three factors prevail everywhere?
No, not at all. Hunter-gatherers and simple agricultural societies have little
or no social stratification. Other societies are stratified but have no State
that can monopolize the use of violence. Upward mobility is thus an ongoing
free-for-all that selects for other psychological characteristics, i.e.,
ruthlessness, charisma, and ability to mobilize gangs of young men. Finally,
still other societies are so stratified that downward mobility is impossible.
This is the case with the caste system in India, where the shame of “losing
caste” deters downward mobility. In addition, the lowest castes can afford to
reproduce because certain stigmatized kinds of work are reserved for them, so
there is no need to replenish their ranks with people of higher social origin.
How do Japan and Korea fit into this picture? Before
the 19th century, both were feudal aristocracies where the elites monopolized
the use of violence. For the bulk of the population, there was thus little
selection for “Big Men”, as is the case in societies where State formation is
weaker. The question then remains whether Japan and Korea were caste societies.
Did the lowest classes reproduce essentially on their own? Or were they
replaced by a steady infusion of downwardly mobile individuals?
Among the Japanese lower classes, the Burakumin were
the only real caste, in the sense of a group that lost few members through
upward mobility and gained few through downward mobility. It is probably for
this reason that the Burakumin differ so much from other Japanese in terms of
behavior, personality traits, and intellectual performance. They seem to have
preserved the mental and behavioral predispositions that were dominant in the
Japanese population five hundred to a thousand years ago (see previous post).
Japan's class structure seems to have resembled
Britain's. In both cases, there were attempts to codify class differences, and
in both cases these attempts largely failed. The Britannica's description of
Japanese society in the 18th and 19th centuries sounds very much like premodern
Chinese society:
Inevitably it [commercial
development] meant the rise of some wealthy members of the rural populace, who
used their wealth to invest in land and commercial ventures and to "ape
their betters" in the cities in both custom and culture. Few farmers,
however, prospered through producing commercial goods, and the majority of
peasants remained impoverished. Rural villages were characterized by a few
wealthy farmers, a majority of small-scale independent landholders, and a
growing number of impoverished tenants. Many small-scale farmers, squeezed by
the demands of commercial development, were forced to part with their lands and
fell into tenancy. (Britannica, 1998)
A similar situation seems to have prevailed in
Korea, even though the yangban were
theoretically guaranteed a privileged status by virtue of their high birth or
success on civil service exams. Moon (1992, p. 204) describes impoverished yangban living alongside peasants and
commoners as fellow tenants. Breen (2004) likewise describes numbers of yangban sinking into poverty without
hope of gaining a government office.
The way a society works in theory often differs from
the way it actually works. English society has long been described as having
rigid class distinctions. Yet when Clark (2009) analyzed the transmission of surnames
by social class, he found evidence of considerable social mobility going back
to the Middle Ages:
Clark, for
example, denoted in the middle ages anyone performing clerical work, including
the minor orders of the clergy who were allowed to marry. Since literacy was
extremely limited in medieval England clark
was thus originally an upper class name. But by 1600 0.7 percent of the
indicted bear this surname, as many as among rich testators (0.63 percent). Of
the 11 indicted Clarks in my sample, 7 had their occupation listed as laborer,
thus illustrating the downward mobility of the medieval educated elite. There
was also sign of upward mobility. Cook
in the middle ages would likely not denote someone of particular wealth or
status. By 1600, however it was the surname of 1.3 percent of the richest
testators. Among the seven rich Cooks, five were described as Yeomen and one as
a Gentleman. Even medieval and early modern England was thus a very fluid
society, with families moving up and down the social scale across each
generation. (Clark, 2009)
References
Breen, M. (2004). The Koreans. Who They Are, What They Want, Where Their Future Lies,
St. Martin’s Press.
Britannica. (1998). ‘Japan’, vol. 22, p. 293
Clark, G. (2009). The indicted and
the wealthy: surnames, reproductive success, genetic selection and social class
in pre-industrial England.
http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/Farewell%20to%20Alms/Clark%20-Surnames.pdf
Clark, G. (2007). A Farewell to Alms. A Brief Economic History of the World,
Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford
Moon, O. (1992) Confucianism and gender segregation
in Japan and Korea, in R. Goodman & K. Refsing. (eds) Ideology and Practice in Modern Japan, Routledge.
Unz, R. (2013). How Social Darwinism made modern
China, The American Conservative,
March 11
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/
61 comments:
Just a thought about Burakumin. Their origin is unclear and it is perfectly possible they have never represented "mental and behavioral predispositions that were dominant in the Japanese population five hundred to a thousand years ago".
Yangban could mean different things "The yangban family that did not succeed to produce a government official for more than three generations could lose its yangban status and become a commoner. .[...] In reality, only the upper classes, i.e., the children of yangban, possessed the financial resources and the wherewithal to pass the exams as years of studying were required to support successful candidates".
Clark 2012 mentioned the importance of clan support for state exam success in China. It is perhaps relevant that Bon-gwan played such a role in Korean society.
By my way of thinking, Korea is similar to China, but more so. Korea is the ground zero of the Chinese type and it is where the most extreme examples of the type are found. Personality-wise especially; see the Korean concept of 'Han': "a collective feeling of oppression and isolation in the face of overwhelming odds. It connotes aspects of lament and unavenged injustice."
I am doubtful about the lower classes dying off in Japan the way they did in England, I've read Clark and others saying Japanese public health was excellent compared to England.
Alan Macfarlane on Japan: "The Japanese have a bilateral... descent system... It leads to a weak kinship system.... As far as I know, Western Europe and Japan are the only two large agrarian civilizations which have been based on such
a concept of descent,".
Those are very interesting suggestions about Japan and Korea. But don't forget that Japan actually had a fairly strict caste system, with the samurai warrior caste generally being endogenous and constituting a fairly significant fraction of the total population during much of its history.
The background reading I did on Japan didn't seem to indicate anything like the very direct link between economic success and family size found in China. In fact, I think there was some evidence that the upper strata sometimes utilized infanticide, both male and female, more than the lower, in order to protect their social standing and prevent downward mobility. In addition, adoption seemed to be very widely practiced. However, my familiarity with traditional Japanese society is pretty rudimentary, and my impressions might easily be mistaken.
One other possibility to consider is the huge agricultural productivity of China, Japan, and perhaps Korea, and the enormous population density that it enabled; I've seen figures that the Chinese system regularly produced up to 10x the calories per acre as contemporary Europe did. One requirement was the tremendous diligence and organization of the peasantry, so this trait would have been selected across all those societies.
The key datapoint would be to try to estimate the overall performance of typical Chinese vs. Japanese under similar environmental conditions. If the gap one set of hypotheses are favored; if small or non-existent, another.
There is a problem with lumping Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese, anyway. Just because they all score high on IQ tests, does not mean it all has the same racial etiology. See my discussion of "East Asian" IQ and genetics from 2006:
"The median IQ [for Southeast Asia] is listed as 87. It is suggested based on brain size and scores abroad that these scores are partly genetic. As with the other chapters, Lynn justifies his racial division of East and Southeast Asia by reference of L.L. Cavalli-Sforza's History and Geography of Human Genes, but Lynn does not order his countries how they should be arranged according to this reference. This book tells us that South China lumps closer genetically with Southeast Asia than North China: " Northern and southern Chinese are substantially different genetically" (p 100); ". . . the South Chinese . . . are more closely related to Southeast Asia than to Northeast Asia" (p 229). This is significant because many of the high IQ scores Lynn places in the 'East Asian' chapter are from various South Chinese populations, such as the Hong Kong studies, as well as much of the over-seas Chinese scores from America and Southeast Asia. This creates a potential problem for a genetic theory of either East Asian high ability or Southeast Asian low ability..."
“There is a problem with lumping Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese, anyway.” ---
Korea is relatively problem-free. But perhaps there is also a problem of lumping Japanese together. The reason is simple: Japan, as Frost and Unz quote, has a strict “caste system”. By default it means that originally there were several large ethnic groups in the main formation period of “Japanese”, with some being intellectually superior while others inferior (decided by different genes?).
There is perhaps about the same size of, or even bigger, problem with lumping Southern Chinese together.
Oke, to put it simplely, there’re so many contradicting points to me that I believe that the supporting statistics of the related part of L.L. Cavalli-Sforza's History and Geography of Human Genes needs to revisited instead of unquestionablely being quoted as given:
1. Except some part of the deep South, particularly Guang Dong (Cantón) and Guang Xi, 2 provinces that border the SE Asia, there appear no large physical appearance differences between “Northern” Chinese and “Southern” Chinese if taking out physical height, at least to the Chinese themselves. This is logical, because of numerous large waves of migrations from all directions for thousands of years up to as recent as the Chinese Civil War in the late 40s. Many (i.e. the number is so large that can not be ignored) so-called “southern” Chinese were in fact “Northern” or “Western” Chinese, and vice versus, merely several generations ago. If one wants to go back for 2 or 300 years (or more), it will become more messy…
2. Cantonese, on average, has never been regarded as one of several most academically celebrated groups/regions within China in entire recorded history, evidenced either by centuries of Imperial Exam results or by Chinese national “GaoKao” science, maths and arts scores since the founding of PRC. What the West know about the Chinese, either from Hollywood or from local Chinatowns or from SE Asia tours, are predominantly Cantonese. However, 2 Cantonese region/state HongKong and Singapore(the other main group of Singapore is Fujianese - another “Southern” Chinese), have the highest average IQ according to some, which is further proved by their related PISA scores.
One, therefore, must wonder, if above is generally true which I believe so, then
1. Unz’s hypothesis of East Asian Exception (i.e. with zero or few Flynn points) has a huge problem.
2. There is a real possibility that Korea aside, Han Chinese average IQ, including “Southern” Chinese of course, is much higher than Japan. This is further evidenced by the empirical fact that historically ( i.e. the whole recorded history up until late 19th century when Japan industrialised) culture, core value system, technologies, architecture, philosophy, religion, popular arts, high arts… up to traditional dress codes, makeups, hairdos to tiny things such as Bushido, Samurai, ninja, sword, chess, “Go”, bonzai, sushi …. etc, etc. virtually any category, thing , or name you could think of belonging to that part of the world, there was almost one-way traffic: either from China to Korea to Japan, or occasionally from China directly to Japan. The higher IQ of the people, to what extent is up for debate, who behind all these is overwhelmingly indisputable. If decades of almost complete technological / cultural superiority of Americans make them believe in “American Exceptionism”, partially justified though, try imagine what 2,000 + years could do to the Han Chinese. There was a reason for the Middle Kingdom “Syndrome”, after all.
3. It suggests that the intellectual differences among these 3 have been largely formed from very earlier on (thousands of years ago) and have been relatively steady without noticeable changes during their evolutions judging by point 2 until very recently (starting from late 19th century), *regardless* what detailed peasantry or caste system they each had or had not.
Where are the modern confirmations then? Go find them.
Jason Malloy: This is significant because many of the high IQ scores Lynn places in the 'East Asian' chapter are from various South Chinese populations, such as the Hong Kong studies, as well as much of the over-seas Chinese scores from America and Southeast Asia. This creates a potential problem for a genetic theory of either East Asian high ability or Southeast Asian low ability..."
That's an excellent point about the close genetic relationship between Southern Chinese and Southeast Asians, and the anomalous gap in their apparent performance. I really should have included it in my paper.
To the extent that these results are confirmed by more extensive research, I think it counts as a point in favor of my suggestion that some particular factor in Chinese society over the last 1000 or so years (the period during which the population in question was aborbed and assimilated) had a large inpact on overall Chinese characteristics.
"close genetic relationship between Southern Chinese and Southeast Asians"
I dount that.
1. What defines "close"? which genes yes? and which genes not? where is the line?
2. Japanese have perhaps equally, if not more, "colse" to South East Asains.
3. on samping, self-identfied "south East Asians" being samled could be ethnic Chinese themselves generation ago.
4 .Thailand and North Vietnam, doe instance, have large ethinc Chinese and/or some of their bloodlines - in case of N Vietnam.
5. As for Philipines, the Chinese almost never mistaken them for "southern" Chinese, even by appearances alone, let alone IQ test.
6. If "in Chinese society over the last 1000 or so years (the period during which the population in question was aborbed and assimilated) had a large inpact on overall Chinese characteristics", then one could accept Nigerians will become Arabs or Thais or Portugues, IQ wise, using the same method within 1000 years?
7. "Southern" Chinese, as a category, is almost as scientific as "Mid-town" NewYorkers.
8. the so-called "extensive research" is highly questionable as it's against logic and common sense, because if it were true, then this would easily bury Rushton, Jansen, Lynn and alike single-handedly.
9. one can't deny some genes are shared among some people of the two stats-wise, just almost like one can't deny genes are shared among ANY geographoically relatively closed neighbours such as Italy and Albania, or Spain and Morroco (I 'm sure you can find many common genes between Italians and Albanians, no?), the tricky part is where is the line - by blurring that one can think up anything he/she wants to.
- I'm Sorry, Frost. Excuse me for my poor spellings above - was in a hurry...
That's an excellent point about the close genetic relationship between Southern Chinese and Southeast Asians, and the anomalous gap in their apparent performance. I really should have included it in my paper.
In terms of Asian genetic population distances -
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003862.g001/largerimage
from the study - http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003862
is a pretty replicable result in terms of genetic population distances. Beijing Chinese are almost intermediate between Japanese and Viets in the PCA, but are closer to the Japanese pole, while Southern Chinese (mostly represented by the Chinese American and Taiwanese samples) are more clearly intermediate between Japanese and Vietnamese.
Vietnamese are pretty close to the Dai population of Southern China and the Filipino population in terms of the PCA chart here, but the Flips are a bit more distal in terms of their overall Fsts, perhaps because of more Pinoy specific drift.
Abstract - "Paired Fst (Wei and Cockerham) showed close relationships between CHB and several large East Asian population groups (CHB/Korean, 0.0019; CHB/JPT, 00651; CHB/Vietnamese, 0.0065) with larger separation with Filipino (CHB/Filipino, 0.014). Low levels of differentiation were also observed between Dai and Vietnamese (0.0045) and between Vietnamese and Cambodian (0.0062). Similarly, small Fst's were observed among different presumed Han Chinese populations originating in different regions of mainland of China and Taiwan (Fst's <0.0025 with CHB)."
The overall Fst chart in present in the study as well (you can see a link to it there), but has an error where a Japanese label has to be inserted between the CHB and KOR labels (and the KOR onwards labels shifted along one) to yield the Fsts they give in their abstract. The overall Fst chart does not include comparisons between Taiwanese and Chinese Americans which would confirm if they were closer to the Viets than Japs (or Korean).
http://oi48.tinypic.com/262u0rm.jpg
The new "direct test of admixture" work (Patterson et al) has been finding the Chinese as mixes of Southeast Asia (e.g. Dai) and Northeast Asian (e.g. Japanese, but not Yakut) populations, but doesn't find much of a signal of mixture in Southeast Asia between Chinese and other parental populations.
Anyways, Peter, what do you think about intra-class competition as a selective pressure?
If smart lords can make more wealth and have larger family sizes than dumb lords, and smart commoners can have more children and larger family sizes than dumb commoners, you'd still have a selective pressure.
If there is a wealth advantage for having lordly status, and a family size advantage through this, but it all gets sucked by the smarter lords, with the dumb lords getting basically no reproductive advantage, then it might not matter much that there is low social mobility for clever commoners.
Smart lords might have larger family sizes if their competition is dumb lords (and not smart commoners).
Obviously under the Clarke model this would blunt his proposed selective effect, but at the same time, a primogeniture regime might allow accumulations of property which make other selective pressures more salient.
"English society has long been described as having rigid class distinctions."
The trick in England was the strict class distinctions: speech, clothing, attitudes etc could all be learned. Anyone who did well for themselves - however raggedy their own origins - could send their children to private schools which would teach them how to act like a gent nb "Great Expectations", so class in England was both very rigid within a single generation but very permeable between generations.
.
China/Japan/Korea
If agriculture first came to China via the Wei valley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wei_River
"The Wei Valley is likely the earliest center of Chinese civilisation"
and then spread east along the Yellow river
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:China_2a.jpg
roughly at the same latitude as Korea and Japan
then you might expect them to spread south and east if possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_people#Theories_of_origins
"Around 400–300 BC, the Yayoi people began to enter the Japanese islands, intermingling with the Jōmon. The Yayoi brought wet-rice farming and advanced bronze and iron technology to Japan."
So if there was a baseline IQ related to latitude you'd imagine them all to be similar at some point.
If the Chinese had the opportunity to spread south that the Koreans and Japanese didn't (because their south was the sea) taking their agricultural techniques into regions with warmer climates and longer growing seasons then perhaps the southern branch would have had greater opportunities for a specialization farewell to alms effect?
At the same time - if the latitude idea is correct - their admixture with the southern locals would have had an effect in the opposite direction. The end-result would then depend on the balance of the two forces: admixture versus farewell to alms.
So it seems possible to me high base IQ northerners who moved south could get a specialization boost over those who stayed in the north - at least in those areas where agriculture was more productive than in the north.
If so then the pattern might be:
northern china (and korea / japan) = high IQ
with
southern china (along the main river valleys) = higher
and
southern china (off the main river valleys) = lower
?
A side-effect of the latitude + specialization model might be that latitude selection effects and specialization selection effects may show up differently or have different time scales?
I wrote 2 posts here (the 9 points) in a hurry very late at night, lol, I knew that I didn’t express myself well and I knew very well that some of the points may sound “ridiculous” in front of “counter proofs” of a wealth of research papers along the line, and obviously by saying so I was setting myself up against all these seemingly hard scientific evidences.
However, let me explain a bit:
1. If research are in direct conflict with logic and common sense, then one has to revisit the research methodology and sampling quality ( even for some peer-reviewed papers, even some claim to be replicable – what if with the same “generally accepted” rules that contain similar erroneous assumptions in the first place?) to see if there’re something wrong and/or not precise in their unspoken assumptions since any paper has numerous underlying assumptions to start with. By playing around these unspoken presumptions, one can play around several different conclusions at his will even though the paper itself contains no error. ( another explanation is that science is still not advanced enough today, some of the genes/or whatever are potentially mistaken, ignored and or undercovered – skip here)
Just to name 1 simple example: how you define “Vietnamese” there precisely? Oke, one says “if have xyz genes, then Viets”. The fact is that many Northern Viets have considerable Han Chinese bloodline (Dai aside) over thousands of years of intermingling even though themselves are self-identified as 100% pure Viets today for whatever reason. With a random sampling of northern Viets one is potentially sampling considerable Chinese bloodlines up against their counterparts in some regions of South China: apple A - apple B, of course they are close. But what the conclusion would be drawn? So Southern Chinese ( or Han Chinese, or Chinese) are similar to Viets? Or Northern Viets? Or other and all South East Asians? What are the definitions for each then? Some mentions Dai people in South China are similar to SE Asian…yet they are similar or the same to start with. Saying that because a relatively tiny tribe of Dai within 1 bordering province of South China share with Viets or Laotians on xyz genes then Southern Chinese in general are like SE Asians in general is like saying because Apache tribe in New Mexico shares similar or identical genes to a tribe of Northern Mexicans, then the US Southeners are very close to Central and South Americans genetically… one can play around all these definitions and can generate replicable results any time. ( Thailand, Malaysia, etc have considerable ethnic Chinese to start with, with themselves knowing so or even not knowing so, how to define who are Thai or Malays and do the corresponding samplings, and in which areas?)
2. the logic and common sense IMO are: people (not experts) generally, by and large, can identify if someone belongs to their own ethic group or not by both appearance and intelligence, since unspoken assumption here is that both these 2 take considerable evolutionary time to develop. For most Europeans this comes much easier as different hair colours , eye colours and skin colours alone will do the bulk of the trick, followed by facial/physical features however small they are, then different intelligence(IQ) traits, etc. Even though to most Europeans East Asians all look the same ( and vice versus), East Asians can, by and large, identify pretty clearly much tinier facial/physical features among each major groups, too. I suspect Black Africans on Sub-Sahara also. To average Chinese eyes, by and large, there are many considerable facial/physical differences between South Chinese in general to any SE Asian group(this natural view is already very different from conclusions of those research), let alone large differences, on average, on general intelligence and other traits that are not necessarily cultural. To generalise them in such a way, one opens a floodgate to convincingly ( perhaps also wrongly) take out the bulk of the "nature argument".
Jason,
Cavalli-Sforza promoted the idea that southern and northern Chinese are genetically distinct. This seems to be greatly exaggerated, if not a myth:
"Archaeological, anatomical, linguistic, and genetic data have suggested that there is an old and significant boundary between the populations of north and south China. We use three human genetic marker systems and one human-carried virus to examine the north/south distinction. We find no support for a major north/south division in these markers; rather, the marker patterns suggest simple isolation by distance"
Ding et al., Population structure and history in East Asia PNAS 2000 97 (25) 14003-14006
Ron,
The image we get from Japanese history is of very strong class divisions, but we get the same impression from English history. I'm still reading through the literature (by googling for "impoverished samurai"), but there seems to have been a similar phenomenon of downward mobility due to the demographic surplus of higher status families.
Downward mobility in Korea. Yukatchu, so the post is correct, the Clark Unz model does apply.
In Japan farmers were heavily taxed, and at one point forbidden to eat from their harvest before handing it in to the local lord.
During the period of Japanese isolation their inventions were agricultural: a two bladed plough, a rotary potato planter, and a weeding machine. That rather suggests there was pressure on Japanese farmers to minimise the mouths they had to feed by minimising their labour force.
Japanese farmers would tend to have raised the smallest family they could get by with. Presumably the most able could afford extra children. (Japanese slang for infanticide was "mabiki" (間引き) which means to pull plants from an overcrowded garden). I dare say Chinese farmers were under similar constraints.
The Chinese official exam system is what gives them an edge over the Japanese; and that's why Chinese superiority is most evident in academic attainment.
Just to name 1 simple example: how you define “Vietnamese” there precisely? Oke, one says “if have xyz genes, then Viets”. The fact is that many Northern Viets have considerable Han Chinese bloodline (Dai aside) over thousands of years of intermingling even though themselves are self-identified as 100% pure Viets today for whatever reason.
The paper being referred to sampled Asian American Vietnamese. A fair few of these people may have cryptic Chinese ancestry. On the other hand, if it were the case that some had cryptic Chinese ancestry and some didn't, you'd expect a wide spread across the clinal area, (which seems not to be the case and to be more true for the Taiwanese and American Chinese).
This study replicates with a samples of direct South East Asian origin.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002886.g004/largerimage
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002886.g005/originalimage
There is still a Vietnamese, through Southern Han, through Northern Han, through Japanese cline with basically no interruptions, but the Thai have a more interesting population structure.
Even though to most Europeans East Asians all look the same ( and vice versus), East Asians can, by and large, identify pretty clearly much tinier facial/physical features among each major groups, too.
I'm sure they can. For me though, particularly not being East Asian, there should be some scientific basis to the claim that there is a Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian cluster. To me - and all the science - it looks like a cline of relatedness. "Simple isolation by distance"
And it seems pretty plausible to me that a Southern Chinese looks basically alike to a person with one Japanese parent and one Vietnamese parent.
If there is a cline of genetic relatedness, and at the same time a sharp division between South China and Vietnam in terms of IQ, then that needs to fit in with any theories of the evolution of IQ. Of course, it is not totally clear to me there is a sharp division in IQ!
"The Chinese official exam system is what gives them an edge over the Japanese; and that's why Chinese superiority is most evident in academic attainment."
1. Exam seemed to affect only a small part of population, as Unz also correctly noted, let alone the fact that it was highly dysgenic instead at the end of each related dynasty as widespread corruptions allowed outright purchase of exam scores etc.
2 How to explain the overwhelming technological/cultural advantages in almost all spheres one cares to measure that China had prior to any such an exam even existed? (For that matter it was not only academic attainment, both before the exam and after it).
3. It reminds me of another unspoken question: indeed who was/were the high caste/class group/s in earlier Japan? Where they were originated? Indigenous Ainu population? Highly unlikely I imagine (will be Interesting to see what Frost says on this) Therefore, it insinuates that we have here a potentially much stronger nature argument rather than a cultural argument such as exam.
====================
“…there should be some scientific basis to the claim that there is a Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian cluster. To me - and all the science - it looks like a cline of relatedness. "Simple isolation by distance"
I am not expert on this, but I am sure there is abundant genetics papers on the origins of NE Asians ( Mongoloid) and vast majority of SE Asians - Australoid
“To me - and all the science - it looks like a cline of relatedness. "Simple isolation by distance"
Are you sure for all the science? Why the French, the Algerians , and the Ethiopians not a cline of relatedness. "Simple isolation by distance", by the same logic?
“And it seems pretty plausible to me that a Southern Chinese looks basically alike to a person with one Japanese parent and one Vietnamese parent.”
Then Congrads, it seems that you are not alone. For many Chinese, the Germans look basically alike to a person with one Swedish parent and one Moroccan parent.
Mind you please define “Asians”( Jackie Chen alike? Or Musharraf alike? or ex-president of Philippine Markus or Gloria Macapagal Arroyo alike…?) , “Vietnamese” and “Southern Chinese” genetically? Or for a simpler task, define South of what? For how long?
There’re maybe a Viets stereotype, but give me a standard Viets? And there are as many “Southern” Chinese as “Mid-town” NewYorkers (60’s definition).
On a separate note:
Yes, peasantry is an important element, yet other powerful drives are somehow overlooked and ignored: Imperial China had a long history ( not 1, 000 year we seem to concentrate here, but at least about 2,000 years considering powerful and prosperous Qin, Han, and Tang dynasties).of large merchant, craftsman, artisan (both popular arts and high arts), even primary industrial alike professional manufacturing population segments.
--Both the Great Wall and Terra Cotta army tell us the existence of probably world’s first but certainly the largest industrial mass-production lines with a highly sophisticated quality control process long before 220BC.
--Don’t forget that China’s main historical exports were Chinaware, silk, tea, textile, etc and some manufactured goods (including weapons from large sized cast iron and steel-making factories), that were well beyond simple wheat and rice production that general peasantry were mainly associated with, compared with what the rest of the world main had at comparative times..
These are important because of the large size, high sophistication and very detailed specialisation from very earlier on of those segments made China virtually “the USA” at a time for so many centuries. For that matter it was the first society in history with large scale commercial banking system and paper money , perhaps (very likely) even its own versions, even though a bit more primitive to the modern day counterparts) of CDO, ABS, credit rating, etc in place… Bankers! Hello? So small-scaled banking lending made the extra Ashkenazis IQ points in such as short time, while it had no effects at all on the inventors themselves – the Chinese in China’s larger, arguablely rougher market and in much longer time frame?
The China we all know today too well, the Hollywood’s China that is, of 99% peasant population on the verge of starvation eating lucky cookies wearing funny hats all the time are not necessarily the real China merely 200 years ago when the Qing emperor dismissed the English ambassador and trade mission as backward barbarians, or 300, 400 years ago when Ming China seafaring in East Africa with fleets that made Columbus’ armada looked alike a Sub-Saraha fishboat… let alone for the most part of the history. Why ignore all these factors I mentioned above all together, but concentrating only on peasantry and exam somehow? The world goes mad.
Why the French, the Algerians , and the Ethiopians not a cline of relatedness
You could model them on a cline, but there would be a big gaps on that cline between those populations, that would be most true between the Algerians and Ethiopians. The Algerians would not be equidistant between the French and Ethiopians, but much closer to the French, making a cluster model more useful, and it more useful to talk of a Algerian-French and Ethiopian cluster, in this scenario, than to use a clinal model.
That doesn't appear to be much the case for the Vietnamese-South Chinese-North-Chinese-Korea-Japan cline model.
For many Chinese, the Germans look basically alike to a person with one Swedish parent and one Moroccan parent.
Good for them if they have any genetics studies which would make that model plausible, bad for them (as far as being taken seriously goes) if they postulated nebulous "abundant evidence" without specifying any.
Anyway, listen, no need to continue this argument.
I've posted up some genetic evidence to support a claim that really isn't too shocking, you've made assertions that based on no evidence and "common sense" that the relationships and relatedness of Swedish-German-Moroccan is analogous to Japanese-Chinese-Vietnamese. So I'm bowing out.
Geographies of Identity in Nineteenth-Century Japan p57. In Tokugawa period Samurai were mending umbrellas to make ends meet.
"By the same token, however, younger sons of low-ranking samurai who were neither adopted into other households as the heir nor given service appointments of their own dropped out of samurai status entirely."
Primogeniture is something Japan had in common with England.
'In China, the mandatory institutional pattern for the inheritance of all strategic (i.e. landed) property was equal division between all the legitimate heirs; normally the sons ... In Japan (as in western Europe), in contrast, strategic property is inherited by a single person: normally the eldest male' (Jacobs 1958: 149).' According to Macfarlane.
"I've posted up some genetic evidence to support a claim that really isn't too shocking, you've made assertions that based on no evidence and "common sense" that the relationships and relatedness of Swedish-German-Moroccan is analogous to Japanese-Chinese-Vietnamese. So I'm bowing out."
//////
Pity. I am sorry that you view it that way.
I, for one, will not easily accept any literature/research, peer-reviewed or not, for granted, particularly when it deals with a complex thing and when it seems to contradict with countless first hand life experiences (it's not just my common sense and logic, but many's. And I can assure you that the IQ of many of them including mine are not extremly low).
It is as if you were a natural Swiss and I as a guy who had no clue whatsoever on German language let alone any significant related direct knowledge about anything more than skin deep about that part of Europe, yet telling you according to such such literaute Swiss farmers have close genetic relation to Albanians, etc, what do you and your folks would think?
When a research paper contracts with locals' intuitive knowledge and common sense (which are usually not bs but mostly coming from countless empirical-historical experiences), 1st thing to do, at least for me, is to have 2rd, 3rd and 4th look at those underlying unspoken assumptions of the said reasearch, trust me there´re many, instead of blindly quoting more along the same line.
Science? Even Newton´s laws and Relativity Theory are suject to constant scrutiny as we progress. Today I also unexpectedly and somwhat expectedly saw stories on the new timing of Out Of Africa as new evidences emerged. Why should I take some pretty pie charts on genes made with numerous underlying preasumptions that any second rate spreadshseet guy can make as a sort of Bibile, particularly when we don´t seem to have too much clue about the underlying genes either given the current pathetic state of understanding of genes, and particularly when any statistian will tell you that even with a slight change on underlying methodology and defintion and practice of `random` sampling that he, or I, can pretty much make a tons of diffent pretty gene pie charts on demand at a flip of finger?
Furtehrmore here we encounter a very complex IQ issue that could have a deep impact on many of the current theories -- What happens if accepted the quotes as granted, then Houston we have a problem here, because try name another pair of closely related groups in the world that have so different IQ levels on top of physical traits like so-called `Southern` Chinese - Flips in such a close geo approximity?
i can´t think of any. Can´t you see the obvious problems it entails?
No wonder Unz, just like a shark when smells a drop of blood, rofl, was so quick to jump out, fully knowing that when use it well this alone could potentially be the silver bullet for those who argue `it´s mainly nature not nurture`.
(For that matter but wait a minute, Unz! Have you thought thru the possibility that `that special sth` particular to the `southern` Chinese success vís-a-vís Flips could be something in the water, south of Yangze naturally I mean, on top of those exams? Yeah right, even so it still could be nature! ROFL...)
PoW: No wonder Unz, just like a shark when smells a drop of blood, rofl, was so quick to jump out
That's just silly. I have zero expertise in the genetic structure of Southern Chinese, but had always heard they're supposedly pretty close to Southeast Asians. Whether the experts making that claim are right or wrong, I really can't say.
On a more substantial point, quite a number of people, including via email, have expressed strong skepticism about my suggestion that there might be a substantial performance gap between Japanese and Chinese, and they may be completely correct. It certainly goes against conventional wisdom and six months ago, I would have thought it very unlikely myself.
But when I was doing the analysis underlying my Meritocracy paper, some numbers jumped out at me. California contains a large fraction of all of America's Asians, and the Chinese outnumber the Japanese about 3.5 to 1. But when we examine California's NMS semifinalists over the last few years, we find an annual average of about 750 Chinese against just 15 Japanese, the sort of figure that catches your attention. Also, an astonishing fraction of the top national winners in various math and science competitions have been Chinese, while the number with Japanese names was so small I never even bothered keeping separate count.
Obviously, much of this is explained by various cultural factors and recent selective immigration. But the raw ratios are striking.
It's unfortunate I can't locate any NMS lists from Hawaii. Given the locale economy, I'd guess that its Asian immigration has been much less selective than that to California, and therefore the Chinese/Japanese ratios might be less distorted.
@Unz: lol, I was almost tongue in cheek, can't you see? I'll reply you later.
=============
Just wrote a random list of “Southern” Chinese you may know, who, according to scientific research papers, have close genetical relation with Philippinos: ROFL
Politicians:
Mao Ze Dong, Zhu enlai, Deng Xiao Ping, Chiang Kai-shek, Hu Jintao, Lee Kuan Yew, Elaine Chao, Garu Locke, …
Actor, actress, directors:
Jackie Chen, Bruce Lee, Lucy Liu, Muchelle Yeoh, Ang Lee, …
Arts/musicians/athletes: Yo Yo Ma, , Michael Chang, Yao Ming, Jeremy Lin, Michelle Kwan…
Business: Jerry Yang… + a ton of others
Academia:
Steven Chu(Nobel physics), Steve Hsu(physics) , Amy Chua, Kevin Fong (space physiologist), Tsung-Dao Lee(Nobel physics),，Terence Tao(Fields Medal) ,Shing-Tung Yau(Fields Medal), Chen Ning Yang (Nobel physics), Charles K. Kao(Nobel physics)，Roger Tsien (Nobel chemistry), Yuan T. Lee (Nobel chemistry), Daniel C. Tsui (Nobel physics). An Wang (Computer engineering), etc
lol.Use brains!
@Unz
"Obviously, much of this is explained by various cultural factors and recent selective immigration. But the raw ratios are striking"
That CA NMS comparison obviously suffered 2 drawbacks:
1. character-wise, a bit classic apple-orange, since, as you also noted, there couldn't so large gap btw the two like 720 to 15. One needs to get hold of a wide range of detailed data across these decades on the respective different waves of migrants and their origins, status etc. (don;t forget Taiwanese Chinese and seemingly elite Japanese waves to CA during 803s and 90's with "Buy America") in order to make a point with a spreadsheet.
As you noted, a better choice could be Hawaii, or perhaps even better, former apartheid SA and Brazil, even though in the latter two cases both were below or well below their respective national average and the tests involved may not be as standardised as the US ones. But it offers wider perspectives and perhaps a bit re-confirmation, too.
Yet even so it could still be a bit misleading, because -
2. Time-wise, what I call "snapshot". It’s because the period/s highlighted could be a non-representative blip/s in the span of history.
Comparatively, what should shock you more is not CA NMS, or some fashionable Nobel or national / international Maths or computer competitions but the overwhelming and more statistically valid Chinese Vs. Japanese achievements across the board (I highlighted a bit in one of my previous posts) from earlier/mid 19th century back to as early as any available records started – way more than span of imperial exam or FenJia etc.. Now that means something to you?
Addition(on China-Japan):
Do the setting up of imperial exam, the ability to have successfully implemented it, maintained it by and large across centuries and the poplurity / acceptance of the general populace (no order or policy can be maintained for such long without acceptance of the masses at natural level, agree?) insinuate us something of the IQ of both the underlying elites and underlying masses in the very first place?
Panda@War: Just wrote a random list of “Southern” Chinese you may know, who, according to scientific research papers, have close genetical relation with Philippinos
Actually, aren't quite a number of those very high-profile Chinese actually Hakka, believed to be Northern Chinese who migrated to Southern China some centuries ago? Hakka are remarkably over-represented in all sorts of prominent Chinese leadership positions, for reasons that aren't entirely clear.
Not being a real China expert, I'm just going by what I've always read, and if I'm wrong, please correct me.
Panda@War
"insinuate us something of the IQ of both the underlying elites and underlying masses in the very first place?"
Sure but it's still possible that the equation has a form something like
BIQ + ((BIQ * sk) / 100)
where BIQ is base IQ and sk is some kind of universal specialization constant that comes into play when a population reachs a certain level of civilization i.e. creating a level of civilization can also create competition for new specializations which add a boost to the original IQ.
@ Unz No worries, I no expert in this area either, lol.
First thing first, what I meant earlier by common sense mainly refer to facial recognition. I think/observe that any person ( even South Africa Bushman, regardless IQ) can very accurately identify a stranger to see if he belongs to his kinship or not just by looking at his face. Give him a group of different people with the same hairdo and dress, he can very accurately select amongst them who is yes and who is no – why? human brain is such a giant supercomputer that can do many “wonders” that our current science just don’t have the answers yet. I think it’s like a natural instinct, formed within the first months/ year when a baby in Mom’s arm staring at her silently for hours every day…lol - there should be already some research done on that, if no, somebody just has to collect some data and do it.
Oke, Asians ( Africans, even Europeans to be honest) can perform that easily amongst the neighbouring countries. I’ve never heard of that a “Southern” Chinese mistaken one of their own to a standard Flips, for example, to a North Viet perhaps since some are similar to many at bordering 3 provinces - Canton, Guangxi and Yunnan = it’s logical as many share bloodline, the same way that many in New Mexico or El paso share bloodline with Mexicans by interbreeding or just are the same tribe originally. However, saying “Southern” Chinese is WAY off because majority of Han Chinese heartlands and Han Chinese are in the South (traditionally which includes the West such as Sichuan), “hakka” is only one of them. They tend to outperform as leaders, IMO, is mainly to environmental/cultural factor that their homeland – Fujian Province is very mountainous ideal for wild mushroom and bamboos than rice fields…usually on the other side of a mountain people already speak a very different dialect…hence a very tough environment for survival considering what they have and absurd transportation to outside world . That’s why historically large waves of Hakka migrated to SE Asia for survival…they are more toughened people.
Hakka’s consensus origin can be found in wiki perhaps, whatever that is, I believe just by looking at their average faces they belong to Han Chinese – and North Han originally like all others – why?
Simples. Actually the US is a pretty good analogy here. W Bush’s heritage can be traced back to some noble in England – people from the north, yes? With about 200 years unification of the US, he already claims he is a typical Southerner very naturally (imagine what 2,000 years unification of China did to a typical “Southern” Chinese). But does that mean Bush has any shred of genetic relations with Senor Chavez in Guatemala? In fact CA and FL have been packed with Bush-like “Southerners”, just like China but China is 10X more. People usually prefer warmer weather particularly in the past when the associated better agriculture harvest made the general survival and life much earlier.
Another common sense analogy is Europe. If it had been unified from Finland to Greece from England to Western Russia in one piece around BC like what China has been, with 1 gov, 1 army, 1 currency, 1 language, etc., I bet we would have had been able to find the majority of Finns, Swedes, Norwegians, Scots, English, and Ruskies living in warmer areas such as Croatia, Southern Italy, Spain and France alike calling themselves typical typical “Southern” Europeans today, akin to how Hakka etc “Southern” Chinese call themselves, even though most of them having not too much to do genetically with Algeria, Egypt or Morocco just miles away down the Med, except in some pockets of southern bordering areas. Of course, there would have been some of them remaining in their northern homelands until today for whatever reasons such as just being able to stare at polar bears quietly at the front yards, inspired in awe, in -30C degree…?
===========
@ Anonymous
The first impression is that I tend to agree with you.
If I may, why not roughly
BIQ + BIQ * sk + r
sk : (unified) population size and density. ( 0.x<sk<1.x, considering the Eskimos)
r: residual values, e.g. imperial exam, Fenjia, and all other fancy juices… rofl
" California contains a large fraction of all of America's Asians, and the Chinese outnumber the Japanese about 3.5 to 1. But when we examine California's NMS semifinalists over the last few years, we find an annual average of about 750 Chinese against just 15 Japanese, the sort of figure that catches your attention. Also, an astonishing fraction of the top national winners in various math and science competitions have been Chinese, while the number with Japanese names was so small I never even bothered keeping separate count.."
It is not clear to me if Ron is suggesting a significant IQ advantage over Japanese by the Chinese (not noticed heretofore).
A Chinese advantage that is mainly evident in exams hardly suggests the imperial exam had negligible effect.
"A Chinese advantage that is mainly evident in exams hardly suggests the imperial exam had negligible effect."
...I am sipping my afternoon tea while reading FT feeling the strong force with me...you may wonder why...lol...
Now unless you have sufficient evidences that I was on the verge of death from starving this morning, what I ate for the lunch and thereafter is logically irrelevent and morally none of your business, to be honest. ROFL.
@ Anonymous
Woops,typo. Sorry.
It should be X = BIQ * sk + r
( note: I think this sk already contains the elements of BIQ to a certain extent, because without a sufficiently high baseline, one barely stood a chance to have a hugh population size and density to start with. Even with some luck that it had for a while, it would be soon conquesred by nearby higher IQ people thus it would not last.)
Koreans are known to have been farming longer than any other east Asians, and hence whatever selection east Asian farming imposed, Koreans were under it for longer. Korea is the ground zero for the East Asian type. Through the constraints of east Asian agriculture, sexual restraint was selected for. Hence Asians, especially Koreans, have reduced secondary sexual characteristics. It's is perhaps not coincidental that the east Asian variant of EDAR, v370 causes smaller breasts 'and increase in the number of eccrine sweat glands'. I'll bet you anything that it causes fewer apocrine glands; they diffuse sexually stimulating smells, and it's known Koreans have fewer of them than anyone (Race,Baker 1974). There are also known differences in Korean reproductive endocrinology:(see here and here). Looking at their astoundingly low birth-rate; it's obvious Koreans have been selected for reproductive restraint.
In a nutshell: Koreans Chinese and Japanese have all been selected for high IQ and temperance("moderation in action, thought, or feeling; restraint." ) by east Asian agriculture.
The Chinese have been subject to additional selection for the type of IQ useful in academic attainment. I think there is a parallel with the selection that produced part of the high IQ of the Ashkenazim. Just my opinion.
166 eJulateLarge differences in testosterone excretion in Korean and Swedish men are strongly associated with a UDP-glucuronosyl transferase 2B17 polymorphism.
It's is perhaps not coincidental that the east Asian variant of EDAR, v370 causes smaller breasts 'and increase in the number of eccrine sweat glands'. I'll bet you anything that it causes fewer apocrine glands; they diffuse sexually stimulating smells, and it's known Koreans have fewer of them than anyone (Race,Baker 1974).
The Asian EDAR, v370 increases pretty much every kind of glandular development it is involved with (or a null association). The mammary glands which EDAR increases the density and proliferation of are a modified form of apocrine gland.
Interestingly, Asians are also frequently noted to have high levels of sebum production and gland development - e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/20050218163713/http://www.thecosmeticsite.com/formulating/skincare/959721.html - we recently conducted a pilot study comparing sebum measurements in age- and sex-matched Asians and Caucasians. Sebum secretion was significantly higher in Asian skin than in Caucasian skin. This has possibly resulted in a higher incidence of acne vulgaris in Asians. It is our observation that Asians also often complain of oily scalp. Sebaceous glands are part of the same group of glands as mammary, eccrine and apocrine. This is thought to be due to greater gland development.
Coincidentally, Asian populations have a mutation in the ABCC11 allele which decreases activity in both mammary and apocrine secretions. That would help compensate for an increase in say, apocrine secretions.
It'll be interesting to see if subjects without the Asian modal allele in ABCC11 but with the Asian modal allele of EDAR have relatively higher or lower apocrine secretions compared to populations with the ancestral ABCC11 and the ancestral EDAR. I wouldn't bet very strongly that they have less!
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_entertainment/539789.html
The oldest cultivated rice grains found are in China...
Some glands are more prominent than others! Showing cleavage is considered outrageously sexy in Korea, so why would there be selection for smaller breasts if not for the reason I suggest, eh?
Chinese think Europeans smell like radishes (its actually testosterone derivatives), and apocrine glands are what cause Europeans to waft that smell. Koreans do have fewer apocrine glands than other humans, less testosterone, and less testosterone driven behaviour too. Look at the Korean birth-rate.
The earliest known farms in east Asia were in Korea.
Some glands are more prominent than others!
I am saying only that the mechanism for smaller breasts (volume) is much higher breast gland development (larger breast glands).
And the Asian EDAR seems to cause pretty much higher development of all apocrine-like glands (and this is the general pattern of Asian apocrine-like gland development). That being the case, I wouldn't bet any real money that apocrine glands are the one exception to the pattern of Asian EDAR = more glands (all things being equal), since they have an allele which already explains their low apocrine secretion level.
I don't know if Baker actually measured the level of apocrine glands in Koreans (and other East Asians) or worked from low apocrine secretions backwards (assuming that low secretions means low gland development). If you've read the text, perhaps you could enlighten me?
"The earliest known farms in east Asia were in Korea."
South Korea currently is under strong nationalist resurgence waves as their economy took off, the same as Japan at 70s, 80s and 90s. Being under complete Chinese dominance in all spheres of achievements for thousands of years and recent Japanese humiliation for the last 100 years, Koreans had been stuck btw a rock and a hard place (to be fair, Korea was generally more advanced than Japan for most the history due to that fact it was China's vessal state). Thus it is understandable why they have such strong nationalist feelings at the moment.
If you look through some Korean Nationalist websites( if you understand Korean language), they are claiming virtually evergthing and everybody important in the Chinese history Korean origins. rofl. e.g. the first emporer of China has Korean origin, Tang dynasty emporers were Koreans, Confucius was Korean, the Great Wall and Beijing's imperial palace were designed by Koreans, Koreans invented imperial exams, Korean were the first to use chopsticks for Tofu - yet another Korean invention of course... even they managed to find a close genetic link between Goerge Washington and Koreans with concrete DNA analysis... it is in the same vein of feelings when Japanese nationlists claimed that they were at least "half-white" due to Ainus and had nothing to do with Chinese and Korean Astraloids not that long ago, lol, (everyone were so convinient to forget that Japan was in fact the Weakest Link among East Asia 3 for most of the history) , all backed up with seemingly authoritive genetic researches popping up allover the places... lol
... so much so that in Chinese forums it became a wellkonwn phrase years ago to describe this new phenominon - "Japan own the present, Koreans own the history, and Indians own the future" (as for most Indians' claims, the keyword will always be "we WILL..." because it seems that Indians themselves didn't have any well-written down history book until the British Raj give them one hence they seem had nothing to claim for the history, except "0" of course, thus they must claim the future) . rofl.
Now, unless you're Korean Sean, calm down and use your own brain to think instead of letting a Korean nationalist wedsite do it for you. Look at at which latitudes Korea (entire) is located. What kind of common sense it will take to suggest that it has more chance for the earliest farming than relatively warmer/nicer, much more heavily populated central Chinese plain just down the Yellow river?
"Korea is relatively problem-free. But perhaps there is also a problem of lumping Japanese together. The reason is simple: Japan, as Frost and Unz quote, has a strict “caste system”. By default it means that originally there were several large ethnic groups in the main formation period of “Japanese”, with some being intellectually superior while others inferior (decided by different genes?)."
Genetic distance maps show that the Japanese have rather small genetic range, comparable to that of Korea. DNA studies have also shown that Japanese are ethnically homogenous, with the exception of Ryukyuuans and the Ainu, who were not assimilated large-scale into Japan until the 19th century.
You also seem to think that there was an ethnic hierarchy in Japan, pointing to Unz's use of the word "caste system" as your proof. In fact, a caste system is simply a social hierarchy based on blood; it doesn't mean that there are ethnic differences between classes (if Unz and Frost were saying that - they would be wrong.)
Japanese have been shown to have some of regional variation in percentages of certain DNA markers, which are attributed to the varying levels of intermarriage between the agricultural Yayoi people and the older Jomon people, whose descendants make up the traditional inhabitants of Japan. Ryukyuans and Ainu are simply extreme ends of the scale, with 55%and 85%haplogroup D vs. the 25-35%in ethnically Japanese (haplogroup D is thought to be a Jomon Y-DNA marker).
I have yet to see any study supporting a multi-cultural, ethnically stratified, feudal system in Japan, except for this radical study by C. Loring Brace claiming that the samurai were mostly Ainu. But even he claims that this was due to intermarriage with ethnically Japanese royalty, not the Ainu alone ruling other Japanese people.
"It reminds me of another unspoken question: indeed who was/were the high caste/class group/s in earlier Japan? Where they were originated? ... Therefore, it insinuates that we have here a potentially much stronger nature argument rather than a cultural argument such as exam."
If there were a nature argument, it would be due to eugenics, malnutrition etc. since there's no difference in ethnic origin.
Panda, I wonder if you're that bastard who runs that anti Korean site and said those two girls were asking to get run over by a tank. Going by this map the Yellow River (Huang He) is a lot closer to Korea than the Yangtze The Chinese who are most likely to be the descendants of ancient upper classes are those who live where the earliest Chinese civilisation flowered: the Huang He valley of north China. That probably explains why southern Chinese are less intelligent.than the Manchurian-Korean type.
East Asian variant of EDAR causes smaller breasts, and 93% of Han have it. But I was a bit out of line saying that it explained everything about east Asians, as 60% of American Indians have it too. It looks like sexual selection, but it can't be. I think that fits into a pattern. My point is that East asians, especially northern Chinese and related populations have a suite of peculiarities associated with testosterone metabolism and testosterone directed behaviour. To simplify; they seem to have been subject to anti sexual selection: selection for sexual restraint. Their lack of axillary odour is only one example of this. "Apocrine sweat glandModified apocrine glands include ... the ceruminous glands, which produce ear wax; and the mammary glands, which produce milk. [...] East Asians have fewer such glands than Europeans and people of African descent, which decreases their susceptibility to body odor.[28][30] Individuals of African ancestry have the largest and most active apocrine glands.[31] Racial differences also exist in the cerumen glands: apocrine sweat glands which produce earwax.[3] East Asians have predominantly dry earwax, as opposed to sticky; the gene encoding for this is strongly linked to reduced body odor, whereas those with wet, sticky earwax (Europeans and Africans) are prone to more body odor". Also
"Axillary odour, which is uncommon among Japanese (but common among Caucasians) was taken by the Japanese to be a disease they called 'osmidrosis axillae'—a disease that warranted hospitalization and exemption from the army") Aprocrine glands are known to be responsible for axillary odour" Also "Axillary odour is attributable mainly to the microbial conversion of androstadienol and androstadienone (which are secreted by the apocrine glands) to 5a- androstenone, 5af-androst-16-en-3a-ol,and 5a-androst-16-en-3a-ol. " It modulates women’s attributions of men’s attractiveness.
East Asians do lack a smell that is due to testosterone derivatives, and this is most strikingly epitomised by Koreans "WHILE only 2 percent of Europeans lack the genes for smelly armpits, most East Asians and almost all Koreans lack this gene, "
In my opinion, East Asian men lack this sexually stimulating (to women) smell, and handle testosterone very differently to other men because of selection for temperance - especially in reproductive behaviour. 10.66 (and check out the figure for Korea). IN Japan a quarter of unmarried men and women between the ages of 30 and 34 say they are virgins. The people of Korea and the Huang He, Henan Valley (home of the Yellow River Civilization) have probably been selected for this for longer than other east Asians. I would expect that they have more reproductive restaint as well as higher IQ.
Anyway, to get back on topic: a hierarchy of classes is the key factor in raising IQ; farming probably doesn't have much effect.
"Panda, I wonder if you're that bastard who runs that anti Korean site and said those two girls were asking to get run over by a tank."
--- ROFL.Thanks for asking, but no, Panda is no that bastard. Now it's my turn to wonder if you're the bastard who drove that tank?
"Yellow River (Huang He) is a lot closer to Korea than the Yangtze"
--- Right, and it's even close to where thros ancient Turks were, your point being? You must be kidding. To get to Korea from Huang He, either you go North and cross the while Manchuria, or go to Shangtong and swim over the Yellow Sea. To go to Yangze however, you only need to close your eyes and ride on horse back for 2 days in a straight line - it took the current high speed rail 1 or 2 hours.
"That probably explains why southern Chinese are less intelligent.than the Manchurian-Korean type"
---sigh... "Southern"Chinese allover again? I thought I wrote 5 or 6 posts on that alone...?
"Henan Valley (home of the Yellow River Civilization) have probably been selected for this for longer than other east Asians. I would expect that they have more reproductive restaint as well as higher IQ."
--- ROFL. Do you know by chance Henan provinde has been historically renouned for producing prefessionl beggers inside the whole China? The Science, maths, and arts scores of Henan have been, generally speaking, MUCH lower than MOST of "Southern"Chinese provinces, both in Chinese history, current GaoKao, and in PISA.
You don't deny that the first civilization was in north China, so why is it so difficult for you to believe that the people who originated the Shang Dynasty were similar to Koreans, and the southern Chinese are the result of hybridisation by the culturally advanced northerners with southern peoples?
I've previously posted links which show weak or non existent adaptations for courtship and reproduction among East Asian males, and Koreans epitomise that. East Asians have the low birth-rates, and Koreans epitomise that. East Asians have large brains, and Koreans epitomise that too (cranial capacity of Korean males averages 1470cc).
The Japanese upper classes still look rather Manchurian-Korean (slightly aquiline noses for example).
Sean
"In a nutshell: Koreans Chinese and Japanese have all been selected for high IQ and temperance("moderation in action, thought, or feeling; restraint." ) by east Asian agriculture."
IIRC East Asian agriculture isn't all the same. It is or was millet or wheat in the north (i forget which) and rice as you went south.
If there was a difference in the population density supported by the two models that might support the idea of an already relatively high IQ northern colonists getting a bigger specialization boost in the south.
(Assuming specialization boosts exist.)
Also did landlordism and the possibility of a yeoman farmer effect exist everywhere at all times and all places? I doubt it.
slightly off-topic but interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty#Historical_shift
"The average age at which the onset of puberty occurs has dropped significantly since the 1840s.[67][68][69] This was dubbed 'the secular trend' by J.M. Tanner. In every decade from 1840 to 1950 there was a drop of four months in the average age of menarche among Western European females. In Norway, girls born in 1840 had their menarche at an average age of 17 years. In France, the average in 1840 was 15.3 years. In England, the average in 1840 was 16.5 years. In Japan the decline happened later and was then more rapid: from 1945 to 1975 in Japan there was a drop of 11 months per decade."
So both northern europeans and east asians used to have very late puberty which given the dates seemsto me to have been changed by industrialization.
Given that it has been dropping since the 1840s i don't think it can be the usual reasons given.
Was it sexually precocious girls - as a result of early puberty - being sent off to convents or otherwise punished that raised the average age of puberty?
And the breakdown of rural cultural controls with industrialization and urbanization that has led to it dropping?
There are no reasons to think infanticide was at all common in Japan, later Japanese at round the time of the Meiji Restoration (ie. westernisers) demonised the past with such stories as believers in the progress narrative similarly smeared the Middle Ages of Europe. Like the claims made against our own medieval ancestors, such claims against historical Japan cannot be taken at face value.
Though infanticide was surely existent there (and in Europe), population control in Japan was surely achieved by means of restraint, contraceptives and after-the-fact emmenagogues as in medieval Europe, the Classical world, traditional China etc.
On another note regarding EDAR, v370, remember this gene is found in the Americas too and by inference it must be at least as ancient there as the Clovis and its derivatives. People living in the cone of South America possessed traits such as thick, straight Mongoloid hair even if the rest of their phenotype wasn't East Asian.
These factors seem to be too mild, shortlived and unexceptional to produce a 105 average IQ. It is more plausible to think that these factors slowed down the dysgenic decline in IQ slightly, relative to Europe. Agriculture just isn't that cognitively demanding.
East Asians evolved their high IQs the same way Europeans did. Under the much harsher selection pressures of surviving an ice age for hundreds of thousands of years, back when they were Neanderthals.
Recent studies indicate that East Asians are approximately 40% more Neanderthal than Europeans (due to their isolation from Africa).
http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2013/02/04/genetics.112.148213.short?rss=1
And that is why they are smarter than Europeans, although agriculture may also have been somewhat less dysgenic in East Asia than it was in Europe. for the factors you guys mention.
SMERSH,
Then how do you explain the lower mean IQ of related populations in Mongolia and Siberia?
Anon.,
Part of the initial drop could reflect improvements in nutrition (although that factor could not easily explain the continuing drop over the past half century). But I also suspect that erotic stimuli were less present in the traditional social environment of young boys and girls. In Western societies, "dating" was rare or nonexistent before the 1920s. The process of courtship was much more rigidly controlled and supervised by parents.
"You don't deny that the first civilization was in north China, so why is it so difficult for you to believe that the people who originated the Shang Dynasty were similar to Koreans, and the southern Chinese are the result of hybridisation by the culturally advanced northerners with southern peoples?" (Sean)
To be fair even the majority of Korean and Japanese supremacists would admit that the “leading core” of their "tribes" were some kinds of descendents of China's Zhou Wen Wang (the first king of Zhou Dynasty of China)at the beginning. That's perhaps the main reason that they try to steal Chinese history.
"South People"? ROFL! For one more time : The terms such as “South people (of China)”, “Southern” Chinese, etc. are such logically misnomers in any scientific context that makes celeb gossip mags look good.
There were barely sizable "South People" to start with. Think! We are talking about 1000s years BC when the North expanded to the South. At a time there was no Geneva Convention or anything remotely similar. It is utterly logical to suggest that when one tribe was defeated in battles one lost the entire survival and breeding rights - literally wiped out of the face of the earth with All males of defeated Southern tribes killed , some females kept as slaves and others killed, too. The modern time closest analogy would be like what Anglo-Saxons encountered and did in North America and Australia, but only more salvage due to the prehistoric nature. Yes?
On top of this, another 2 (seemingly) facts suggest that the size of “ SE Asia tribes in the beginning in South of Yangze was tiny and fragmented:
1. there is no evidence of large sized agriculture in the area prior to the arrivals of Northern invasions ( logically also due to the fact that rice farming etc were not invented by SE Asians, but Han Chinese).
2. there are absolutely no historical evidences that SE Asian tribes won large battles/wars against Han Chinese in the region, or the colonise South of Yangze at any point in history thereafter, so that their genes remained and occupied the region with any large scale. In fact, the contrary is the case.
That said, "South" China (refer to South of Yangze) is a HUGE. I don’t deny
i) there’re were some minority tribes deeply isolated in some pockets of mountainous areas that survived till today;
ii)in the most southern border areas that next to SE Asia, notablely the current Guang Xi Minority Autonomous Region, Yunan Province, and Guang Dong (Catón) Province, there are significant SE Asia genes either due to natural degrees of mixed breeding or due to the fact many were the same bloodlines of some SE Asia tribes in the first place;
iii) they are cases where SE Asia genes mixed into other regions in South of Yangze or even the North of it.
(Continued…)
(Continued…)
Yet
For i) so what? by default they are not intermingled with the Han in a significant degree, till today.
For ii) in either case, particularly in Catón, Han Chinese infusion has been so large historically that Catonese had been considered a main part of Han Chinese long time ago even though some of their facial features are SE Asian ( a typical case in point : the face of actress Lucy Liu, a typical Cantonese woman, with many SE Asia facial features even body size, yet still can be passed as Han Chinese due to overall consideration, particularly average IQ).
For iii) the degree is arguablely far less than Japan: the intermingle of Australoid or proto-Mongoloid tribes such as Ainu-Jomon, Pacific islanders and Han Chinese/Korean “new arrivals” have been far more significant in Japan, BOTH in sheer size AND in percentage terms, throughout the most part of its history. In fact, if one really want to look at how NE Asians and SE Asians mingle, Japan is THE historical epicentre that is far, but far more, significant than some “Southern” Chinese.
As Logic and history show, the points are:
1. Any country has north-south divide today, so is China – many for convenience purpose (e.g. Chinese calling themselves “Northern” Chinese or “Southern” Chinese is no that different from what Australians calling “Northern” Australians and “Southern” Australians)
2 Historically and today, “Southern” Chinese (defined as South of Yangze river for mainly convenience purpose) haven’t got a large degree of SE Asian genes, and for most, arguablelly not at all. The notion that they do due to their southern prehistoric (>100 generations ago) invasions is heavily flawed as I argued above. So called “genetic pie charts” popular in www with millions “sources” have some critical and quite large implied sampling errors due to varieties of BOTH technical AND political ( e.g. darn commies, or “white” and “polite” allies such as Japanese, ROFL) reasons.
3. On the contrary, “Southern” Chinese are MORE “Nothern” than “Northen”Chinese in many areas. Reason one: China has been an unified landmass for so long that it is natural for original Nortehrn Han (mostly elites even) to reside in areas of Southern China which has much better weather and fertile lands. Capitals of many Chinese dynasty were located in South of Yangze, so were probably the majority of its (migrated) masses and elites – the same as USA today, most “Southen”elites such as G Bush, Schwarzenegger etc are located in the weather-perfect South such as TX, LA or FL instead of freezing Canadian borders. This also fits into evidences of Chinese historical exams and folk stories in which the most popular areas producing the lion share of genius are areas in the South of Yangze , instead of the North – it’s utterly logical.
4. Another even much simpler logic kills the bulk of arguments of Sean : average IQ. Typical “Southen” Chinese regions/coutries are Singapore(Fujianese and Cantonese) , Hong Kong(Cantonese), and Taiwan(largely Fujianese), with average IQ of 108, 107 and 105 more or less on top of the world, higher and equal that of South Korea? There are hardly more “Southen” Chinese than these people, except pure mountain tribes at the southern borders. Perhaps Sean would like to explain the magic that how the heck an admitted high IQ people(“North” Han) + an admitted relative low IQ people( SE Asians) = an admitted The highest IQ people in the world, higher that his Korean gods?
In other words, if “Southen” Chinese had a significant amount of SE Asian genes yet still producing the highest average IQ in the world, try to imagine what “Pure” “Northern” Chinese without mingling could do? ROFLMAO!
The Shang had the earliest written language and therefore they had a wealthy knowledge caste whose higher intelligence could trickle down to replace impoverished peasants. IQ in the good schools in Singapore is almost incredibly high, but the westernised cities would have been attracting the most intelligent for generations. Southern rural IQ verses the northern rural IQ would be a better comparison. The Japanese aristocracy look like the Manchurian-Korean type.
Sean,
1. I know little on Shang,for now, due to less personal interests...yet the recognised more celebrated (in terms of achivements) is the following Zhou Dynasty. I know that many Japanese claim that Japan's royal familyline could be traced back to a defeated royal line of China's Qi Kingdom(current Shangdong province)shortly before the Qin Dynasty unified China when they retreated by sailing to the eastern isolated and backward "Dong Ying" Island - how ancient Chinese called Japan in Chinese fork stories and perhaps some history tests, too, by Sima Qian.
2. You can't explain HK and Taiwan, though. Singapore is staggering and somewhat a "myth" in its own right even to me , considering it does have almost 20% much lower IQed Malays and Tamil Indians who are dragging down the average. Of course, there're waves of recent high IQ influx from HK recently. Yet from rags to riches it only took ONE geneation in Singapore, which, by and large, was originally formed by average, or arguablely below average, typical "Southen" Han Chinese. ROFL. Therefore generally speaking Singapore is NOT "by attracting the most intelligent for generations" as you claimed, it did so mainly AFTER it became rich.
The possible takeaway implication here is more for Ron Unz actually, considering possible effects of early Flynn points, hence:
No, Unz, East Asians are NOT the Exception. lol.
3. Agreed, that by facial recognistion the Japanese aristocracy also to me look like more a Manchurian-Korean type, including the highest like japan's emporer - rofl, I am afraid that Japanese supermacists would go nuts here.
(A very interesting note is that Japnese were very short historically, compared with Chinese and Koreans. Of course, body heights can be quickly changed by nutrition level as Japanese did with only 1 or 2 generations post WWII. Yet from historical Chinese accounts, Japanese geberally were VERY short - thus names like "undesized savage pirates". I think this was not a pure nutrition problem alone, but containing a genetic element as well - mixed with SE Asian/Pacific islanders.)
Yet one can not deny another seemingly fact that a big chunk of Japan's aristocracy also look like very much Han Chinese by facial recognition. Also e.g. the former Japanese PM's surname is "Kan" - an official title, and a derived Chinese surname, in Imperial China. On top of that, the pre-modern history of Japan, indeed the world's classic and perhaps the ealiest perfect Copy+Paste example on nation scale, of almost eveything of Imperial China in its entirety, and the natural acceptance at mass and elite levels also seem to confirm there's a genetic element.
This is related to one of my previous points that it seems that Japanese are much more highly mixed(than Korea, and "South" China for that matter): amongst large waves of migrantions in the beginning of Han Chinese-related tribes, Korea/Manchurian-related tribes -- together they seem to have about 50%, and perhaps another 50% from much less advanced local Ainu-Jomon-Parcific islanders(Australoid). Unlike China and Korea which mostly dominated by almost 1 single group with sheer size, all of Japan's groups(all with hugh populations) have co-existed since ancient Japan till today. No wonder some claim that Japan had much more rigid caste/class system than imperial China did. When different tribes are together for so long, caste is logically a direct consequence. Isn't that a good evidence?
So both northern europeans and east asians used to have very late puberty which given the dates seemsto me to have been changed by industrialization.
For "late" puberty - 17 years is not too surprising in present day Africa...
The irony, as I saw several times in internet noticed by others, is that Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai is quintessentially 100% more Han Chinese (e.g. faces , hairdos and clothing…) than so-called the “Chinese” counterpart – Jackie Chen’s Shanghai Noon.
Hollywood is good at making stereotypical Western faces. However, the “Hollywood China”, how ancient China and Chinese were or “should” look like or they somehow magically “expect” to see, is deeply ingrained in the minds of almost any Westerners, average Joes or scholars. If one wonders what did ancient China look like, no worries, go talk with your travel agencies and have a tour in traditional Kyoto having a taste of “classic” Japan , because it is an almost 100% carbon copy of Tang China, but on a small scale and hence much less spectacular.
On a side note, some interesting personal observations on facial recognitions:
Remember the main actors/actresses of The Last Samurai?
-- To me, the leading Japanese actor the “Samurai”, his son, his younger brother and the leading Japanese actress – the widow, have quintessentially typical “Northern” Han Chinese faces. That woman’s face might have a bit trace of Japanese though, yet the rest men having nothing to do whatsoever to typical Japanese or Korean.
-- The “kid” in the movie can be argued as either Han Chinese face or Japanese face, but nothing to do with Korean whatsoever.
-- The Japanese PM in the film, however, is quintessentially 100% Japanese face (and body size too), not even a drop of Han Chinese or Korean blood - I suspect it’s something heavily Ainu-Jomon.
-- When Tom Cruise was trying to talk with trapped “Samurai” in the capital, he and an English cameraman first stopped and yelled down by a Japanese guard at a door, that guard’s face is 100% Japanese, perhaps with a bit Korean touch or perhaps not, but nothing related to whatever Chinese, “North” or “South”.
On two Korean American movie stars: one is a young and famous Hollywood comedy movie megastar, can’t remember his name – his face is quintessentially 100% Han Chinese – no mistake there. The other Korean called Kang, an actor in series The Mentalist. His face can be said as “classic” Korean, or a regular Han Chinese – can be either way, but just not a Japanese face.
"For "late" puberty - 17 years is not too surprising in present day Africa..."
"In Norway, girls born in 1840 had their menarche at an average age of 17 years."
Average age 17.
Sean
"Anyway, to get back on topic: a hierarchy of classes is the key factor in raising IQ; farming probably doesn't have much effect."
Yeoman farmers - farmers who own or have a long-term lease on their land - are part of a class heirarchy. They're a big part of the Farewell to Alms effect IIRC.
.
SMERSH
"These factors seem to be too mild, shortlived and unexceptional to produce a 105 average IQ."
The bulk of it could still be the initial latitude headstart with a top-up from specialization competition.
If England had a Farewell to Alms effect mostly as a result of competitive attrition among the yeoman farmer / artisan class then if China (or at least parts of it) had a similar yeoman farmer / artisan setup but over a longer period of time than England then that seems plausible as a source of a few extra points.
(Basically it's the same as the imperial exam argument but broadened to include the whole "middling" class.)
"Agriculture just isn't that cognitively demanding."
Does it need to be cognitively demanding in itself? If you have
80% peasants
10% yeoman farmers
10% hereditary aristocrats
then it pays for everyone in the bottom 90% to try and compete for the 10% yeoman farmer spots. It's the *competition* for those spots that needs to be cognitively demanding to have the effect.
That's the effect of specialization imo. It creates competition for those spots.
Peter Frost
"In Western societies, "dating" was rare or nonexistent before the 1920s. The process of courtship was much more rigidly controlled and supervised by parents."
Yes but part of that also involved reproductively punishing sexually precocious girls (whom i'm assuming would be disproportionately early pubescent?) e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum
And before that nunneries? (maybe?)
Anyway i was mainly just wondering if anyone knows if there were similar institutions or behaviors in East Asia for girls who were sexually active too early.
Lastly. If agriculture came to China in two directions: via the Wei valley in the north and via India in the south then that may have a part to play in this as well.
"Then how do you explain the lower mean IQ of related populations in Mongolia and Siberia?"
Sorry for the delayed response.
They only sampled populations from Beijing and Tokyo for Neanderthal ancestry in the study I mentioned, so we don't know how much Neanderthal ancestry Mongolians and Siberians have.
IQ data for Mongolians is sketchy, but IQ for Mongols in China was found to be about 100*, which is pretty decent, considering how poor Mongolia is. They could be slightly more mixed than the Han Chinese (so less Neanderthal), they could be due for some increases due to the Flynn effect and they could have experienced dysgenic decline in IQ at a faster rate than the Chinese, since they may have lacked some of the eugenic factors you mentioned in this series of articles.
IQ of Siberian natives isn't known, but presumably lower, closer to the Native Alaskan numbers. If it turns out that they are equally as Neanderthal as the Chinese and Japanese, then the theory would look a bit weak. But the study didn't contain data on their level of Neanderthal ancestry, so it's hard to say. They could have Denisovan ancestry or something similar, for all we know.
*http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1280412201.html
"You don't deny that the first civilization was in north China, so why is it so difficult for you to believe that the people who originated the Shang Dynasty were similar to Koreans, and the southern Chinese are the result of hybridisation by the culturally advanced northerners with southern peoples?"
Koreans were Australoid.
Post a Comment