It has been established that East Asians have a higher average IQ than Europeans. It goes something like this:
Europeans - 100
East Asians - 105
Ashkenazi Jews - 110
All other races are around 90 or below.
Yet despite their advantage in intelligence, East Asians have not been as successful as Europeans in terms of technological progress, military success or cultural achievement. At least not in the last 2000 years.
So what gives?
Some people have suggested that East Asians have lower levels of creativity, which explains their lack of scientific achievement, which could then explain their lack of military success due to subpar weaponry and tactics.
Satoshi Kanazawa, a renowned Japanese evolutionary psychologist, wrote a paper in 2006 called No, it ain’t gonna be like that. It is very blunt, here is the 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.
The first chapter is titled ‘Asians can’t think’, and explains the severe lack of Asian Nobel prize winners. In the rest of the article, the best point he makes is that Asians have a highly conformist culture.
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. …
It is true that evolutionary psychology is currently flourishing in Japan, and many Japanese evolutionary psychologists attend annual meetings of HBES, as Miller points out. But this is due almost entirely to one man: Toshio Yamagishi at Hokkaido University. Virtually all of the Japanese evolutionary psychologists that Miller identifies as regular attendees of HBES are either students or collaborators of Yamagishi's.
Yamagishi is a true maverick. None of what I have said above about Asians hold for him. He is a true exception to virtually all generalizations and stereotypes about Asian academics.
Kanazawa is very good, I have one of his books. Many people, especially conservatives, would probably agree that Asians are more conformist. And of course, it is genetic, as culture is not created in a vacuum.
But why are they more conformist than Europeans? The answer, and this is somewhat speculative, could relate to religion and social cohesion.
Religion makes us more socially cohesive, and is adaptive as it gives greater incentive to make sacrifices for the future generations. Studies show that more intelligent people are less religious. Also, countries with lower IQ’s tend to follow stricter religions (Catholicism vs Protestantism). These countries also generally require stricter punishments for breaking the law, as there are more law breakers.
So my argument is that Europeans are less intelligent, because if the average IQ was too high, we would not be religious enough, and too nihilistic. Asians, on the other hand, are more conformist, and can thus afford to be more intelligent without disrupting social cohesion. Its just two slightly different evolutionary paths to the same trait.
Its just like how Europeans adapted for the cold in different ways to Asians. We have lots of hair and long noses that heat up the air we breathe in, while Asians have flat faces, epicanthic folds in adulthood and more subcutaneous fat (giving them a yellowish colour).
Hair can provide a place for parasites, and so if you don’t need it, its better to not have it. Why then are Arabs so hairy? I don’t know. Probably old genes that came from the north. Anyway.
There is also the possibility that Asians have less variation than Europeans, and thus less geniuses. I think there may be some evidence for this, after all, they all look the same. But I doubt its really true. I feel like someone would have written about it if Asians cluster closer to the IQ mean like European females do.
The conformist explanation makes too much sense. If you think about it, creativity is the exact opposite of conformism. What makes something creative? It is the fact that nobody else thought of it. I suppose it also has to be something useful, or people will just think you are an idiot. But if someone or something is creative, then by definition it is non-conformist.
It is probably a lot to do with testosterone. Europeans likely have more testosterone than Asians. Also, inventors almost certainly have more testosterone when IQ is controlled for. It is important to control for IQ because higher IQ may very well mean less testosterone (in men). People with autism, who Simon Baron-Cohen believes are responsible for most of our technological innovation, have higher levels of prenatal testosterone.
Empathy also has something to do with it I’m sure, in that being accepting of outsiders, including outsider viewpoints, is a central tenet of scientific progress. In a previous post I explained how empathy is the opposite of in-group bias, with Asians having lower empathy and higher ethnocentrism than Europeans.
A fascinating, lucid and insightful piece as always Windsor. Two questions I'd like to clarify with you. The first is why do you think the future of East Asian evolutionary psychology will continue to be in the United States and Europe. Are the systems their enough alone to change their conformist mindsets/culture?
Second, I don't understand what you're trying to say here: "There is also the possibility that Asians have less variation than Europeans, and thus less geniuses. I think there may be some evidence for this, after all, they all look the same. But I doubt its really true." Who looks all the same? How is that relevant to IQ and geniuses?