The current research supports the claim that East Asians excel relative to Europeans in g, spatial ability, and pretty much every other form of nonverbal reasoning.
I suppose you could claim that East Asians are smarter than Europeans in the same sense that men are smarter than women, because there is a remarkable similarity between the cognitive profile of women relative to men and Europeans relative to East Asians.
The reason why people emphasize g is that it seems to be crucial for cognitively demanding tasks like math and physics and the likes.
Greg, quite frankly you're amusing. You do realize that I've read your comments on other blogs right? Your insecure and obsessive white nationalism is pretty obvious from the stuff you post elsewhere. I'm not sure why you're putting on this lame act here all of a sudden. You know, I could copy and paste some of your stuff onto here...
And buddy, I managed to get into an Ivy League university. What about you? I suspect that your desperate refusal to accept East Asian cognitive superiority is the only thing that keeps you going in life
I asked Professor Phillipe Rushton (the IQ expert) at the AmRen conference recently if creativity can be measured. He said, "Yes, you can measure creativity. You can measure everything." The reason I asked this is Bob Whitaker has pointed out that IQ tests measures capability. It doesn't measure creativity.
I then asked Rushton about the East Asians' (Chinese, Japanese, etc) creativity, he pointed out it's the social norms & conformity that stifles their ability to be more creative. But he did say that the larger brain capacity allows one to be more creative. He says once they're free from all those social restrictions, they could be more creative than the whites.
I sent the message below to a social scientist I know who (like many, perhaps understandably) is confused about Stephen J. Gould's status as an evolutionary theorist. Many Gould readers are surprised to learn that his main expertise was the paleontology of snails and that he struggled with higher mathematics. When I first encountered Gould's essays as a kid, I concluded that there was just no there there. He was all literary flourish and little depth.
Which brings me to an observation I've been meaning to write about. It is that high verbal ability (which Gould certainly had) is useful for appearing to be smart, or for winning arguments and impressing other people, but it's really high math ability that is useful for discovering things about the world -- that is, discovering truth or reasoning rigorously. The importance of math ability manifests in two distinct ways:
1. Powerful (deep) models of Nature (e.g., electrodynamics or evolutionary theory) are themselves mathematical. Most of the incredible progress in our understanding of the universe is just not available to people who do not understand math. For example, we can talk until we are blue in the face about the Uncertainty Principle, but there is no precise understanding without actual equations.
2. The statistical techniques used to analyze data obtained in a messy, complex world require mathematical ability to practice correctly. In almost all realistic circumstances hypothesis testing is intrinsically mathematical. It is quite easy to fool yourself statistically if you don't have strong math ability, but rather are simply following cookbook recipes.
High verbal ability is useful for more than just impressing others -- it typically implies a certain facility with concepts and relationships between ideas -- but high V alone is a dangerous thing. The most confused people I meet in the Academy tend to be high V, low (modest) M types.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)