IBM RESEARCHERS
IBM MOST INNOVATIVE AMERICAN COMPANY
http://researcher.ibm.com/researcher/search.php?sn=1&q=
5% WHITES
33% INDIANS
33% CHINESE
28% MUDS
SO SUPERIOR
QING DVELOPMENT FIREARM CANNONS BANNED
With the great firearms inventivemness of the late Ming, early Qing too had some success in firearms development. The first machine gun was invented by a firearms expert Dai Zi. Sadly this inventiveness did not last long. Though there was some development in science and technology, medical science, mathematics, the building, agronomy, etc. in Qing Dynasty. But in order to keep the dominant position of Manchu. The emperor of Qing Dynasty implemented the wrong policy on ethnic affairs. The Ming General, Yuan Chonghuan once killed the Manchu leader, Nauerhaci with their cannons, so the emperors of Qing Dynasty disliked firearms very much. The development of Firarms were then banned. Because the ruling Manchu’s were not Han. They had distrust on the Han majority. To hold their authority many of the Confucian Courtes were not given power yet they were unwilling serve the Emperor. It was not until the Taiping Rebellion when the Manchu government realize the necessity to hand some of their power to the Han people and allow them to take important affair of the government. Its was from then when the Qing government bagan to take importancy on science an technology with the self strengthening movement following up. However, Manchu Authorities like especially Ci Xi still were suspicious to the Han Confuacian Courteus which eventually brought the fall of the Qing Dynasty.
MUH CREATIVITY
>The Chinese like to have it both ways. They'll tell you they're the oldest civilization in the world and therefore better than you, but if you point out how shitty and uncouth they are they'll say it's because they're a young country.
>5000 years of history, still shit in the street. China.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ-sHbC-apk
>CONQUER, RAPE AND PILLAGE THEIR WAY TO PROSPERITY
>MUH CREATIVITY
U.S. PATENT AWARDED IN 2011
U.S. patents awarded in 2011
japan 46139
germany 11920
france 4531
u.k. 4307
korea 12262
taiwan 8781
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_utl.htm
japan most innovative
Japan Most Innovative Country, Study Finds
PUB. DATE
July 2007
SOURCE
Research Technology Management;Jul/Aug2007, Vol. 50 Issue 4, p9
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article focuses on a report form the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) that shows that Japan is the most innovative country. The EIU used a methodology, involving patent citations, in ranking 82 economies based on their level of innovation in 2002 to 2006. Also cited are the goals of the study, including the analysis of the significance of innovation. One of the key findings says that innovation has a beneficial effect on both national economic growth and on corporate performance.
EMOTION RACE RECOGNITION WESTERN BIAS EAST ASIAN
>if your eyes work and you watch her
>its a soulless automaton going through the motions
>she looks fucking bored to be playing
In this neural phenomenon of face recognition, humans perform better when they recognize faces and emotional facial expressions of persons of their own race in comparison to faces and emotional facial expressions of persons of other races.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect
WHITE PEASANTS GO FLIP ME A BIG MAC
JAPANESE MOST CIVILIZED
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDrc_AW7FTM&t=40m45s
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQlxcz9U2x0&t=7m55s
WHY CHINA
WITHOUT INDUSTRIALIZATION SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION IS NOT POSSIBLE
THIS IS WHY POOR COUNTRY INNOVATE FAR LESS
CONFUCIAN CHINA DID NOT INDUSTRIALIZE BECAUSE THE CHINESE ELITES DEEMED THAT HARMONY WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROGRESS
THUS THEY CONSIDERED TRADE WITH OTHER NATIONS BARBARIC, THEY OUTLAWED OVERSEA TRADE, DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED GUNPOWDER WEAPONRY AND WERE NOT INTERESTED IN EUROPEAN INVENTIONS
CHINESE INTELLECTUALS WERE ALSO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FURTHER INHIBITING THEIR POTENTIAL
leibniz on china
And so if we are their equals in the industrial arts, and ahead
of them in contemplative sciences, certainly they surpass us (though it
is almost shameful to confess this) in practical philosophy, that is,
in the precepts of ethics and politics adapted to the present life and
use of mortals.
china british imperialism COMPARISON CIVILIZED
Unlike China, Britain’s industrial revolution and overseas expansion was driven by a military policy. According to Hobson, during the period from 1688-1815 Great Britain was engaged in wars 52% of the time[3]. Whereas the Chinese relied on their open markets and their superior production and sophisticated commercial and banking skills, the British relied on tariff protection, military conquest, the systematic destruction of competitive overseas enterprises as well as the appropriation and plunder of local resources. China’s global predominance was based on ‘reciprocal benefits’ with its trading partners, while Britain relied on mercenary armies of occupation, savage repression and a ‘divide and conquer’ policy to foment local rivalries. In the face of native resistance, the British (as well as other Western imperial powers) did not hesitate to exterminate entire communities[4].
Unable to take over the Chinese market through greater economic competitiveness, Britain relied on brute military power. It mobilized, armed and led mercenaries, drawn from its colonies in India and elsewhere to force its exports on China and impose unequal treaties to lower tariffs. As a result China was flooded with British opium produced on its plantations in India – despite Chinese laws forbidding or regulating the importation and sale of the narcotic. China’s rulers, long accustomed to its trade and manufacturing superiority, were unprepared for the ‘new imperial rules’ for global power. The West’s willingness to use military power to win colonies, pillage resources and recruit huge mercenary armies commanded by European officers spelt the end for China as a world power.
China had based its economic predominance on ‘non-interference in the internal affairs of its trading partners’. In contrast, British imperialists intervened violently in Asia, reorganizing local economies to suit the needs of the empire (eliminating economic competitors including more efficient Indian cotton manufacturers) and seized control of local political, economic and administrative apparatus to establish the colonial state.
It has been repeated again and again until it has passed into psychometric folklore that above a threshold IQ of about 120, there is no relationship between measured intelligence and creative accomplishment. This bit of common wisdom, like many other myths, is a misinterpretation of the facts and is only half true. The facts are these: that the correlation between IQ and creativity is a twisted pear correlation, and that in a classic twisted pear correlation there is no systematic relationship between individual measurements on one variable and individual measurements on a second variable above a given threshold. There is, however, a definite relationship between measured intelligence and creative accomplishment for groups of people. There is a definite, empirically-observable, optimum IQ for creative accomplishment in intellectually demanding fields, that lies well below the maximum IQ, but also well above the 120 IQ limit.
Anyone familiar with elementary statistics has been introduced to the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient. In most cases he will also have been introduced to the scatter diagram. This is where score pairs are plotted on a graph. He will usually have been taught that score pairs almost always form an ellipse, and that if the ellipse is narrow, the correlation is high, but if the ellipse is circular, the correlation is zero: i.e., there is no systematic relationship between variables.
pear1.gif (2462 bytes)
pear2.gif (2117 bytes)
Moderate Positive Correlation
No Correlation
There is, however, a compromise between these two extremes. It is found when there is a systematic relationship between two variables below a threshold, and no systematic relationship is found above the threshold. Its scatter diagram is a union of an ellipse with a circle. It looks like this:
pear3.gif (5080 bytes)
It should now be obvious how the twisted pear correlation got its name; its scatter diagram looks exactly like a twisted pear. If we let the horizontal dimension on the graph represent IQ, and the vertical dimension represent creativity, then point A represents the IQ/creativity threshold. Below this 120 IQ level, measured intelligence and creativity have a positive correlation. Above point A there is no systematic relationship between IQ measurements and creativity for individuals.
Point B on the graph represents the very highest level of measured intelligence. This is the group with the very highest IQs. As the reader can see, they tend to be well above average in creativity, but also well below the highest grades of real-world creative accomplishment.
Point C on the graph represents the group with the very highest level of creative achievement in intellectually demanding fields. Although this level of accomplishment is found well below the very highest IQ level, it is still very much higher than the 120 IQ threshold. We now know what that optimum IQ is.
The answer to this question has been provided for us by Doctor Anne Roe, whose study in the 1950’s of 64 of America’s most eminent scientists and scholars remains perhaps the most important study of creativity ever made. Being the wife of Doctor Gaylord Simpson, the widely respected paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, gave her access to the kind of proven creative performer that few researchers have ever had. At least one of her sample had won the Nobel prize, and, without doubt, all of them were world-class achievers in their various fields.
Doctor Roe made a very detailed study of each of these men from a wide variety of scientific and scholarly fields. Her sample included physicists, chemists, biochemists, geneticists, psychologists, anthropologists and others. She obtained detailed personal histories, examined family backgrounds, educational records, marriages and so on. She also examined their emotional lives through Rorschach tests and other methods. Included in her mental examination were three IQ tests: a verbal, a spatial, and a mathematical test. As the intelligence of these men went through the ceilings of ordinary IQ tests, Doctor Roe had the Educational Testing Service, the developers of the SAT, construct especially difficult tests for her subjects. The IQ equivalent earned by her subjects on the verbal test—the test which is probably the closest equivalent to a conventional IQ test—was a median of 166, a score that is about the same as that earned by the average member of the Prometheus Society.1
Creativity research has produced some of the most defective studies in psychometric literature. Tests were constructed that purported to measure this elusive quality, but turned out to have no correlation with real-world achievement in any field. Subjects were often school children, sometimes elementary-school children, as though the “creativity” of a ten-year-old could be compared to that of a Newton or a Goethe. Claims about the relationship between IQ and creativity were often based on mixtures of tests that measured different functions, had inadequate ceilings, and were of uneven reliability, rather than being based on the results from one good test. But the biggest flaw in these research designs was that the creativity being studied often wasn’t creativity at all, in any meaningful sense. Finding a hundred uses for a brick is in no way comparable to discovering a new scientific principle, or inventing a new experiment. Doctor Roe’s research avoided all of those pitfalls. There is absolutely no question about her subjects’ intelligence, or their creativity. And although their verbal IQs ranged from 121 to 177, only six of her 64 subjects scored below 148. There is simply no question that creativity at the very highest levels, in the most intellectually demanding fields, is heavily dependent on the same kinds of abilities as those sampled by verbal IQ tests.
The twisted pear correlation also has something to teach us about Prometheus Society members. It tells us that almost all of them show some degree of creativity. It tells us that the average member of the society is about as creative as those with the very highest IQs—those with IQs of 180, or 190, or 200. But above all, the twisted pear tells us that the greatest real-world achievements will come from people very much like ourselves—those with IQs below the very highest levels. It tells us why the sidekick gets the girl.
1. Anne Roe, The Making of a Scientist (New York: Greenwood, 1953), p. 164.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)