tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post8640605535852049402..comments2024-03-28T16:22:14.888-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Is there a Silent but Sensible Majority anymore?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger191125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-9496493795454187842012-08-07T08:50:30.021-07:002012-08-07T08:50:30.021-07:00Because Spanish is the language of the poor and th...Because Spanish is the language of the poor and the ignorance Carlos Slim and Amancio Ortega are the first and third poorest man in the world. Here there are more than one with an anglo-inflated ego.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-32107138750506902812011-01-07T14:26:16.211-08:002011-01-07T14:26:16.211-08:00>Though judging by CITY SLICKERS, it seems like...>Though judging by CITY SLICKERS, it seems like Jewish cowboys are riding us for a horse.<<br /><br />Jesus, what a non sequitur. (Though you're probably right.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-40880534172056049692011-01-07T13:44:58.321-08:002011-01-07T13:44:58.321-08:00>Can't there be a happy medium between bein...>Can't there be a happy medium between being realistic and being "too realistic"? Isn't that what a healthy society should aim to strike?<<br /><br />The solution is a free society in which everyone is at liberty to try to earn something unlikely at his own expense and on his own responsibility. And in which others are free to act according to their own judgment of those efforts.<br /><br />Any outlier who can prove the rule should do so to his glory. The common attitude should be: try as hard as you can if you think you can make it and if you pay your dues.<br /><br />But realism should be propounded without embarrassment. For example, since blacks seeking a college education are better advised to apply for smaller institutions than for Harvard, they should be so advised, openly.<br /><br />A society somewhat similar to this already existed in the USA in the past and still exists anywhere there are sensible people, so my solution isn't original.<br /><br />An interesting point is that the aforementioned society would be ideal from an HBD standpoint. Science lives on a rich input of fresh observations. Surprises are especial grist to thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-44279271556986696802011-01-05T13:27:44.998-08:002011-01-05T13:27:44.998-08:00None of the above, I've read about a study in ...<i>None of the above, I've read about a study in which newborns</i><br /><br />There was a similar study with infants, where their noses were pinched shut. White and black babies swat the hand away or turn their heads to get loose. Yellow babies open and breathe through their mouths instead.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-79669798843462539402011-01-05T10:48:23.923-08:002011-01-05T10:48:23.923-08:00"Remember the public head runs wholly on myth..."Remember the public head runs wholly on myths. The American myth is that of the free spirit who can do and be anything."<br /><br /><br />It's like this. Even though most Indians were never Brahmin, they look to the Brahminic model. Even though most Japanese were never samurai, they look to the samurai model. Though most Americans were never cowboys, they look to the cowboy model. <br />Though judging by CITY SLICKERS, it seems like Jewish cowboys are riding us for a horse. And maybe the remake of TRUE GRIT, made by the very Jewish team of the Coens, is portent of sorts. For one thing, the pen, the camera, and computer are mighter than the gun. The Right has a lot of guns and like cowboys of old. Jews are the like cowboys of the 21st century with more advanced weapons.asdfasdfasdfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-34587425655554180682011-01-05T09:51:15.905-08:002011-01-05T09:51:15.905-08:00"On a related note I've read that the Chi..."On a related note I've read that the Chinese never practiced surgery, while Westerners have been doing it since prehistoric times. The "let it be", "resign yourself to fate" attitude seems to be deeply rooted in the East."<br /><br />I'm no great apologist for the Chinese, but really...<br />They just didn't believe in carving up the body, unless it was execution by a thousand cuts. <br />They used herbs and potients instead of surgery. Acupunture shows profound understanding of the body processes and the ability to manipulate them. <br />In the future, most medicine (except when urgent and necessary) will be closer to this method. In some ways, all this cutting and carving is pretty barbaric IF it is possible to treat the dis-ease systemically by balancing the system. IF a cancer can be stopped with a herb concoction that puts the body chemistry back in balance, that is obviously preferable to chopping it out and not curing the cause of the affliction.<br />And btw, Arab medicince used preparations for anesthetic long before ether and chloroform. To this day some medical historians wonder why European doctors did not use these pain killers when they actually were aware of their existence and had even used them at different periods of European history. Perhaps a fear of killing the patient; but personally, after reading Fanny Burney's account of having her breast removed (1812) without anesthetic, I'd have preferred to die of too much anesthetic.lesleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-9568514332342823882011-01-04T22:04:49.565-08:002011-01-04T22:04:49.565-08:00Lots (probably a majority) of Americans don't ...<i>Lots (probably a majority) of Americans don't think genes determine racial differences in intelligence, but almost everyone thinks so regarding individuals.</i><br /><br />They might believe genes "have some effect" but it's highly doubtful that "almost everyone" believes that genes <i>determine</i> those differences (set them in stone). And as much people might be inclined to believe that genes "have some effect" it's even more doubtful still that they make the connection between that and "lineage" -- they may regard someone as brilliant and that he's "naturally that way," but they don't see the connection between that and who his ancestors are.Silvernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57487008940021799802011-01-04T21:15:09.088-08:002011-01-04T21:15:09.088-08:00Remember the public head runs wholly on myths. The...<i>Remember the public head runs wholly on myths. The American myth is that of the free spirit who can do and be anything. Any realistic negative assessment (such as "you are an 82-year-old amputee, the NBA is not for you") is either rejected angrily or admitted reluctantly and with an embarrassed lack of discussion.</i><br /><br />That's true. But the obvious danger is that rationalization will begin to run in the opposite direction -- a great many people will simply assume that because they've never previously achieved a certain objective they never can, for genetic reasons, so why even bother trying? Is American mythology really worse than that?<br /><br />Moreover, it's never really as clear cut as an 82 year old amputee and the NBA. What if this were 1986 and Spud Webb (5'7) showed up claiming he had a shot at winning the Slam Dunk contest? Wouldn't every single HBDer and his dog ridicule him to the high heavens? "But genetics, man, think genetics!!!" (That's how they'd put it. Not "height"; "genetics.")<br /><br />Can't there be a happy medium between being realistic and being "too realistic"? Isn't that what a healthy society should aim to strike? Isn't that what the people we entrust with explaining the world to us should be aiming for? It's obviously ridiculous to believe that literally anyone can become literally anything. But the genetic determinists are almost as stupid in their failure to realize what impact our beliefs about earthly possibilities and our own potential have on the results we produce -- come on, a lengthy sampling of HBD-oriented commentary is hardly required before one notices the way it leans towards negativity and despair about everything.Silvernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62653106946894910532011-01-04T21:12:03.774-08:002011-01-04T21:12:03.774-08:00There seems to be more involved with this than mer...<i>There seems to be more involved with this than merely the parroting of a communist "line." They seem afraid also that HBD is more or less an attack on their self-esteem - they construe it as determinism, and nobody except Calvinists likes determinism. </i><br /><br />Of course people are going to be afraid. People can tolerate the thought that there exist "out there" (ie none of their friends!) other people who are "better" than them, as long as the criteria by which the determination is made remain vague, and more related to something those people have accomplished rather than something inherent about them. IQ shatters all that. A society in which someone else (particularly someone you know, particularly a "friendly rival") can feel completely justified in feeling superior to you seems horrifying. <br /><br />What you'd probably end up with is -- to use your term -- something like "biological (or racial) Calvinism," in which, far from meekly "submitting" to what the facts of heredity have to say about their make-up (or group), people alter their behavior so as to <i>give the impression</i> that they're one of the elect. <br /><br />(Speaking for myself, my response is simply to say, "Okay then, so you're better than me. And?")Silvernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-10383411207657112732011-01-04T16:55:19.214-08:002011-01-04T16:55:19.214-08:00The common understanding is that genes affect phys...<i>The common understanding is that genes affect physical things (like eye color) but not mental/spiritual things (like intelligence or competence).</i><br /><br />No. Lots (probably a majority) of Americans don't think genes determine racial differences in intelligence, but almost everyone thinks so regarding individuals. As for other character traits like competence, you're on sounder footing.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-74097637538152619382011-01-04T15:01:39.658-08:002011-01-04T15:01:39.658-08:00"I don't see how the uncreative Asians th..."I don't see how the uncreative Asians thing is a canard. East Asians show a remarkable tendency toward groupthink and conformity. Kryptonite to innovation. Innovation has largely been the domain of mavericks. Mavericks are in relatively short supply in east Asian populations. Notice how many achievers of east Asian descent have western backgrounds."<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhhWcRGRtOI<br /><br />The above video--equally funny and sad--sums up what is wrong with Asian culture. The real problem in the video is not so much the foolish old man who thought he had spiritual/martial powers but all his students who played along with the delusions of the 'master'. It's a culture so obsessed with respecting the 'master' that the inferiors preferred to submit to the myth than have the guts to say, 'master, your tricks are totally baloney'. The old fool watches his power work on all of his students and devotees and gets to thinking he REALLY has some mythical power(and takes on a real MMA fighter and gets his ass whupped by reality). <br /><br />Wasn't there a HUGE STORY about 10 yrs ago about some Korean scientist who supposedly cloned the first human or something like that? The most incredible thing about the story was not the fraud--which is common enough among scientists--but the CULTURE of mindless loyalty among the scientist's research aids and students. They knew his stuff was false but pretended otherwise in a kind of Confucian duty to their master. When the scandal broke, the scientist's aids were seen on the news crying and bawling in devotion to their master. Loyalty mattered more than truth. <br /><br />OTOH, we have a similar kind of blind loyal thinking when it comes to Jews. We believed in the magic of Wall Street finance since, by golly, who are we to challenge or question the god-like genius and wisdom of Jews? <br /><br />And when it comes to racial reality, MSM is like those students of the 'master' in the video. A willful loyalty to PC truisms.adfadfadsfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61017624466056253472011-01-04T12:31:50.325-08:002011-01-04T12:31:50.325-08:00"There was a thread here not long ago where m..."There was a thread here not long ago where most people were swearing up and down that creativity had nothing to do with IQ, by the way, which makes Mr. Choi's comment about creativity canards kinda funny. Even funnier, I was one of the people arguing for at least considering a correlation between 'hard' artistic talent (e.g., realistic, aesthetically-appealing rendering) and IQ."<br /><br />Maybe we should distinguish between SparQ--spark IQ--that is 'creative', eccentric, and innovative AND TasQ--task oriented IQ--that is useful and functional but not necessarily original. <br />It probably has a lot to do with personality and social/historical context; some individuals have the spark and live in interesting times that value that sparkness. <br /><br />Some people are smart but well-adjusted and don't have a neurotic-creative hunger for something new and different. Also, their egos are under control; they wanna succeed in life but don't necessarily care to make a name for themselves as 'great men'. There may have been other men just as capable of being military-strategically brilliant as Alexander or Napoleon in their times, but they may have lacked the desire/passion/hunger to attain immortality that someone like Alexander and Napoleon had. Some people simply have more drive. Since their drives are often frustrated, they turn to complexes, which leads to neurosis, which leads to imagination and creativity. People are creative because they are unsatisfied with the world as it is. Reality as it is and old paradigms just don't satisfy their desire for something profoundly different and suits/satiates their huge egos. <br /><br />And some highly intelligent people seem to have something extra. If most smart people are fast at figuring things out, there are other smart people with a 'spark' inside their brains that, unexpected even to themselves, make connections that other people cannot. They feel 'inspired' in their thoughts/ideas/expressions, almost as if their ideas aren't their own but channeled thru them from a higher source. I think this is especially true in music. Some very highly intelligent music critics cannot make music while some musical artists, though perhaps lacking in high critical intelligence, seem wired to some divine creative source. <br /><br />The case of John Nash was interesting because he made connections that didn't really exist but were brilliant and inspired nevertheless. Maybe he should have been an artist than a scientist. Artistic genius is, after all, about making up stuff. <br /><br />That spark thing goes beyond analysis. Arthur C. Clark had intended the ape in 2001 to learn about using the bone by looking at a kind of 'how-to-video' on the monolith. The skill would be gained by external use of senses: monkey see, monkey do. <br />But Kubrick came up with different idea. In the presence of the monolith, a 'spark' would appear within the mind of the ape, so that mysteriously, it would start seeing things in a different way. It would 'inspirededly' see patterns and ideas it had never thought of before. Clark's idea of learning/knowledge is superficial. Kubrick's idea of is internal/Platonic. It's kinda like the difference between Skinner's behavioralism and Chomsky's 'universal grammar' wired inside the brains.adsfadadsfanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-19030031458648346752011-01-04T10:49:11.907-08:002011-01-04T10:49:11.907-08:00And the weird thing there is, the replacement is b...<i>And the weird thing there is, the replacement is basically a matter of choice.</i><br /><br />Not really. Not any more than a granny chose to be defrauded by con artists.<br /><br />If you can't see the fraud and coercion going on, you aren't looking hard enough.<br /><br /><i>But Jose and Consuelo aren't forcing career women to wait to have kids till they're 42, at which point they drop $30K on fertility treatments. The career women are choosing that on their own.</i><br /><br />Is the conversation about fertility rates, or race-replacement? They're quite distinct.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78495432130376435872011-01-04T10:44:41.024-08:002011-01-04T10:44:41.024-08:00But I don't see how it makes sense to worry mo...<i>But I don't see how it makes sense to worry more about theft of the nation from its founding/building population, in the case where their offspring are replaced by Albanians than by Bolivians or Chinese. If there's a theft at all, it's happening because the founding/building population is being replaced, not because of who's replacing them.</i><br /><br />You've been around here for years, do I have that right? 'Bout time you read at least a <i>little</i> about EGI (Ethnic Genetic Interests) if you're going to argue with ethnopatriots, dunnit?Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-53709442415153458842011-01-04T10:40:04.545-08:002011-01-04T10:40:04.545-08:00I'm sure the underlying nature of the people m...<i>I'm sure the underlying nature of the people matters in what kinds of societies can and will be formed, but there's so much driven by culture, technology, the ideas floating on the wind at the time, and random chance, that I have a hard time seeing that you can say much about what societies can be established by some group based on what has been established so far.</i><br /><br />You've got this turned around bass-ackwards. It makes the most sense to give a race more credit for being capable of x type civilization based on how similar it is to the races that have shown they're capable of x. Everything else is just speculative.<br /><br />I generally don't say things like "that group could never do x," I just say "that group never has done x, and I have no good reason to believe it could." Seems more reasonable to me.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-20253221698395875572011-01-04T10:13:31.331-08:002011-01-04T10:13:31.331-08:00None of the above wrote: "Is there any good d...None of the above wrote: "Is there any good data on how much of the East Asian tendency toward conformity survives, say, trans-racial adoption? That is, are Chinese kids adopted young by Americans and raised here more like Americans or Chinese when they grow up, in terms of conformity and agreeableness?"<br /><br />None of the above, I've read about a study in which newborns (I think it was newborns) of different races were put on their stomachs, in a position that caused them some discomfort, by researches. White newborns were statistically more likely to turn themselves over so that they coluld lay on their backs. East Asian babies were more likely to accept their fate - they didn't turn themselves over. I thought that was fascinating. Think of Taoism's main message. On a related note I've read that the Chinese never practiced surgery, while Westerners have been doing it since prehistoric times. The "let it be", "resign yourself to fate" attitude seems to be deeply rooted in the East.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71191297267779150642011-01-04T09:33:08.994-08:002011-01-04T09:33:08.994-08:00"But Jose and Consuelo aren't forcing car..."But Jose and Consuelo aren't forcing career women to wait to have kids till they're 42" <br /><br />Personally? No. Jose and Consuelo aren't personally holding Kathy the Career Woman down and forcing her to swallow birth control pills.<br /><br />But Jose and Consuelo just being here, along with 12 million + of their own coethnics, makes a house or apt. in a good, safe (i.e., White, i.e., Jose-and-company-free) neighborhood with good schools frightfully expensive. So Kathy and hubby can't afford one until she's 42. <br />At which time she discovers she can't quite manage conception, so she goes into new debt for fertility treatments.<br /><br />"The career women are choosing that on their own." Only because she, being a responsible White woman, will NOT have kids unless she can give them a decent life (safe neighborhood, nice neighbor kids for playmates, safe and effective school) and it takes her 'til age 42 to be able to do so.JSMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-89094965231020337802011-01-04T07:57:20.654-08:002011-01-04T07:57:20.654-08:00The common understanding is that genes affect phys...The common understanding is that genes affect physical things (like eye color) but not mental/spiritual things (like intelligence or competence).<br /><br />This body v. mind split in the public head is absolute. The public regards HBD's physical applications as scientific, but quails at any mental-spiritual application as being clear and present Nazism.<br /><br />I have tried such lines as "evolution doesn't stop at the neck" but have gained no traction whatever against this body-mind dichotomy.<br /><br />The public subconsciously suspects it's all conected...but when confronted consciously, they assert firmly that genes have no bearing on mentality.<br /><br />There seems to be more involved with this than merely the parroting of a communist "line." They seem afraid also that HBD is more or less an attack on their self-esteem - they construe it as determinism, and nobody except Calvinists likes determinism. Remember the public head runs wholly on myths. The American myth is that of the free spirit who can do and be anything. Any realistic negative assessment (such as "you are an 82-year-old amputee, the NBA is not for you") is either rejected angrily or admitted reluctantly and with an embarrassed lack of discussion.<br /><br />Can the broad public be trained to be scientific-minded? No. What they can be taught to do is to have respect for scientists, and HBDers must have a better press than they now enjoy if they wish to impose the necessary respect on Joe-Bob and Sally.<br /><br />The solution is that all the old scientific and media figures must die off in the course of time and be replaced by our people, one by one. No scientific revolution or "paradigm shift" is more than merely the last step of just such a long, sometimes arduous replacement process. (No overnight success in any serious field is actually overnight.) How close are we to that sudden sea change of opinion? Your guess is certainly better than mine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-20246930685243237872011-01-03T21:13:18.143-08:002011-01-03T21:13:18.143-08:00The societies we set up for ourselves are wildly v...The societies we set up for ourselves are wildly varying within races. What's the standard white society look like? The Holy Roman Empire? Soviet Russia? Yugoslavia? The Dutch East India Company? Modern-day Sweden? Canada? The US in 1900? Similarly, what's the standard Asian society look like? China? (Today, or under Mao?) Cambodia? Vietnam? South Korea? Japan? Singapore? North Korea? <br /><br />I'm sure the underlying nature of the people matters in what kinds of societies can and will be formed, but there's so much driven by culture, technology, the ideas floating on the wind at the time, and random chance, that I have a hard time seeing that you can say much about what societies can be established by some group based on what has been established so far.none of the abovenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-26929115516958745112011-01-03T21:03:35.971-08:002011-01-03T21:03:35.971-08:00Is there any good data on how much of the East Asi...Is there any good data on how much of the East Asian tendency toward conformity survives, say, trans-racial adoption? That is, are Chinese kids adopted young by Americans and raised here more like Americans or Chinese when they grow up, in terms of conformity and agreeableness?none of the abovenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60889610888164273872011-01-03T20:54:14.035-08:002011-01-03T20:54:14.035-08:00Svigor:
Sure, I think your position is historical...Svigor:<br /><br />Sure, I think your position is historically far more common than mine, and is still common in a great deal of the world. For good or ill, people identify with those who look, talk, worship, and act like they do. Which of these is most important varies from place to place. <br /><br />But I don't see how it makes sense to worry more about theft of the nation from its founding/building population, in the case where their offspring are replaced by Albanians than by Bolivians or Chinese. If there's a theft at all, it's happening because the founding/building population is being replaced, not because of who's replacing them. <br /><br />And the weird thing there is, the replacement is basically a matter of choice. Yes, our economic and social policies aren't as friendly as they should be to families. But Jose and Consuelo aren't forcing career women to wait to have kids till they're 42, at which point they drop $30K on fertility treatments. The career women are choosing that on their own.none of the abovenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-22598245798845697032011-01-03T19:43:49.801-08:002011-01-03T19:43:49.801-08:00I should add, being a maverick can give you "...I should add, being a maverick can give you "extra IQ" when it comes to innovating. There was a thread here not long ago where most people were swearing up and down that creativity had nothing to do with IQ, by the way, which makes Mr. Choi's comment about creativity canards kinda funny. Even funnier, I was one of the people arguing for at least considering a correlation between "hard" artistic talent (e.g., realistic, aesthetically-appealing rendering) and IQ.<br /><br />Anyway, back to my point, odds are a sub-130 IQ maverick is going to have a more entrepreneurial tinker type streak than the next sub-130 guy. Europeans like elbow room and this translates into more experimentation.<br /><br />Being enthusiastic, motivated about experimentation can be much more important to success than being super high IQ.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-90716373674179280622011-01-03T16:57:16.701-08:002011-01-03T16:57:16.701-08:00especially now that bogus claims of lower verbal a...<i>especially now that bogus claims of lower verbal aptitude has been proved wholly erroneous.</i><br /><br /><i>have</i> beenThe Anti-Gnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04386593803225823789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70182312572914926552011-01-03T16:12:44.988-08:002011-01-03T16:12:44.988-08:00"I don't see how the uncreative Asians th..."I don't see how the uncreative Asians thing is a canard. East Asians show a remarkable tendency toward groupthink and conformity. Kryptonite to innovation. Innovation has largely been the domain of mavericks. Mavericks are in relatively short supply in east Asian populations. Notice how many achievers of east Asian descent have western backgrounds."<br /><br />This is why Asians seem to achieve most during times of uncertainty and instability when traditional bonds are loosened; mavericks are given a chance to their thing. Japan produced some very great and original filmmakers from the 30s to 60s when society was much in flux from all sorts of changes and challenges. And Hong Kong cinema was one of the most inventive and brilliant in the 80s. Eventually, Japan settled down to its new norm beginning in the early 70s, and it's been a rather dull place since. <br /><br />If China adopts a culture more open to innovation and individualism, it may achieve great things in the future. Of course, there may be something genetic that makes most Asians prefer conformism to individualism, but a society doesn't need too many mavericks to achieve great things. In any given society, even in the West, only a relatively small number of people are in the innovative or creative fields. In fact, most societies thrive when they have mostly uncreative and stable drones who go through the same routines day in and day out. Most Germns during the 19th century were disciplined drones. And even after Germany lost its best brains in the 1930s and 40s, it's had a powerful economy because most Germans are good workers who obey the law. <br />A mass of hardworking stiffs functions as the main support for the creative/innovative people. It's like a tree needs a huge trunk for there to be green leaves on top. Smart scientists can do what they do because most people do the dreary but necessary stuff to build, clean, and maintain the facilities. Without construction workers, janitors, and cleaning personnel, scientists would have to do all that stuff on their own. And even most smart people are hired to take/follow orders than come up with mindblowing theories of their own. There's a lot of gruntwork even in the intellectual and creative field. Most people in the movie business are hired to take orders than be creative. <br /><br />Asia has a lot of people capable of doing gruntwork, we know that. But can Asian produce a community/culture that also gives free reign to innovative/individualistic people?I think Japan, in the long run, has failed at this. The social structure is such that even highly talented or smart people feel the pressure to keep their heads low and keep their brilliance in check lest it upset social order and hierarchy. But maybe Chinese will be different. Maybe not. If Chinese produce a society that is Japan/German-like for the lower 90%while America/Jewish-like for the upper 10%, it may surpass the US.dsfasdfasdfsdfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70012110352242678982011-01-03T10:19:02.733-08:002011-01-03T10:19:02.733-08:00Word. They're instantly recognizably by their ...<i>Word. They're instantly recognizably by their insistence on plying the hackneyed canard that Asians are uncreative - especially now that bogus claims of lower verbal aptitude has been proved wholly erroneous.</i><br /><br />I don't see how the uncreative Asians thing is a canard. East Asians show a remarkable tendency toward groupthink and conformity. Kryptonite to innovation. Innovation has largely been the domain of mavericks. Mavericks are in relatively short supply in east Asian populations. Notice how many achievers of east Asian descent have western backgrounds.<br /><br />WNs didn't invent the reports by Euros in Japan saying the Japanese can't take a dump without a consensus.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.com