Even if true, this is a remarkably fast pace for evolution. Supposedly within a few centuries a small proportion of the population has had their genotype spread across the entire population of what was already the most populous country in the world.
And what makes this even more difficult to reconcile is your earlier descriptions of “orientals” as being relatively under-sexed and more likely to look after their offspring.
I’m sorry, I just can’t take seriously anyone who insists on calling Asians Orientals…
There are about four generations per century. Animal breeders can work wonders with a few generations.
The Oriental strategy of having fewer children and taking better care of them, and having many fewer illegitimate children, means that over time more of them survive and reproduce. We should not extrapolate current situations into the past. Until comparatively recently illegitimate children had a much higher death rate. So did Negroes living in Africa.
A man who passed the imperial exam in China was given a generous income, so he was able to provide well for this children. In any urban civilization men who had the intelligence to become merchants, government officials, financiers, artists, and so on were usually able to provide well for their children.
What could this possibly have to do with “superior intelligence”? Are you saying the exam system made people smarter? How is this possible?
Or are you saying that the exam system allowed the smartest Chinese people a path to the top? Ok. But how does this increase overall average intelligence? Are you saying those who succeeded in the exam system had more descendants? Do you actually have any data for this? Or you are just making it up?
And they generally had fewer children. You’re just making all this up- there’s no data that supports the contention that the most successful in medieval Chinese society had more descendants than the “peasants”.
A Farewell to Alms (the book’s title is a pun on Ernest Hemingway’s novel, A Farewell to Arms) discusses the divide between rich and poor nations that came about as a result of the Industrial Revolution in terms of the evolution of particular behaviors originating in Britain. Prior to 1790, Clark asserts, man faced a Malthusian trap: new technology enabled greater productivity and more food, but was quickly gobbled up by higher populations.
In Britain, however, as disease continually killed off poorer members of society, their positions in society were taken over by the sons of the wealthy. By that according to Clark less violent, more literate and more hard-working behaviour were spread biologically throughout the population. This process of “downward social mobility” eventually enabled Britain to attain a rate of productivity that allowed it to break out of the Malthusian trap. Clark sees this process also til today as the major factor why some countries are poor and others are rich.[2]
Those with the intelligence to pass the exams were given generous incomes. They were expected to have several wives, and many children, whom they could provide well for.
Meanwhile in Europe the Roman Catholic priesthood was a means of upward social mobility, but priests were expected to be celibate. In Africa the best warriors and hunters had the most wives.
“Expected to”? Come on, at least come up with something that resembles reality.
The Exam system itself was somewhat limited, as people in the lowest classes were not allowed to take part. And since preparation for the exam took quite a lot of time, it was generally the people who were ALREADY in the wealthiest classes who passed them.
And the numbers still don’t add up. Only a small percentage of the population actually took the exam with an even smaller percentage passing it. For any sort of genetic effect (which you still haven’t shown), they would (1) have to breed 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more heavily than the common person (to make up for the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who did not pass it) and (2) accept that the vast majority of their descendants would disseminate into the general Chinese population to mostly lead lives of abject poverty.
All this (among other inconvenient facts) has already been pointed out to you earlier in the thread. You have yet to explain how your theory fits even a common sense sniff test.
Therefore we can only see more ad hoc argumentations, and ignoring of any data that does not fit his narrative. Blackness equals criminality, except where it does not, strange arguments on breeding of limited animals domesticated are asserted to big populations with only some Lamarckist assertions to support.
If is not true that members of the lower classes were not permitted to compete in the exams.
There was no level playing field in the imperial exams. Nevertheless, in every generation there were sons of peasants who achieved the highest honors. Frequently villages would pool their resources to fund the education for a promising member of the village.
The imperial exam system lasted for about two thousand years. That is plenty of time for it to have a genetic effect. As we know Chinese excel intellectually wherever they move to.
This is utter nonsense, and demonstrates you lack any understanding of selection or how evolutionary processes work.
[QUOTE=New Deal Democrat]
There are about four generations per century. Animal breeders can work wonders with a few generations.
[/QUOTE]
In animal breeding, producing a significant effect generally requires rigorous culling - only a very few individuals are included in the breeding population - and intensive inbreeding, such as parent/offspring and sibling crosses. Unless you were selecting only the top 0.1% of the Chinese population and forbidding anyone else to have offspring, and enforcing incestuous crosses, you wouldn’t have any effect - and given the complexities of the inheritance of intelligence, probably not even then.
Define “lower classes”. While some peasants were allowed to take the exam, there are peasants and there are peasants. There certainly were some classes of peasants not allowed to take the exam, even if they could afford it (unlikely).
How so? You’re taking a SMALL number of people who are certainly not outbreeding the rest and expecting some kind of genetic miracle to spread their genes across the entire population? They’re still outnumbered tens of thousands to one (and consequently outbred) by the people who failed the exam. Your argument still makes no sense.
And no, the Chinese don’t excel intellectually wherever they move to. The Chinese laborers who built the railroads? Their descendants were hardly a shining beacon of intellectualism. It took a fresh batch of immigrants starting in the mid 20th century to get the new stereotype of a super intelligent Chinese population started.
And we have our own home-cooked American example to show how much bunk the argument is. Hawaii is chock full of people of mixed Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Japanese, Polynesian, and other backgrounds. They don’t show any sign of having any sort of measurably better intelligence than the rest of the country.
nm
It is well known that members of the Scholar Gentry had several wives and many children.
Not remotely enough to have any genetic impact on the overall population. The suggestion is absurd.
On the SAT Asians outperform whites on mathematics. Since 1990-91 the race gap between them and whites has grown. Whites continue to perform better on reading, as we would expect, because for many English is a second language. Nevertheless, on reading the race gap between Orientals and whites is declining.
SOME of them. Not all of them. For the record, my paternal grandmother was produced from my great-grandfather’s 2nd wife.
Think dog breeding. Within a few generations, you can produce maybe 10 dogs of a new breed.
In the meantime, a few million other dogs have been born who don’t have the qualities of that breed. How many generations to get ALL dogs (or even just a significant fraction) to demonstrate those qualities (hint: more than 4)?
Likewise, the small percentage of people who passed the Imperial Exam are outbred by the people who failed or didn’t take it.
Your numbers don’t just fail to add up. They’re so hilariously unrealistic, they require genetic changes to spread across a population outside of reproduction to come close to matching your preferred theory.
What genetic changes in the two populations account for this?
Doesn’t answer the question about Hawaii, especially since the statistics are hugely skewed towards immigrants.
Recent immigrants tend to be the go-getters with enough financial resources to leave their country. Note the contrast with Vietnamese immigrants after the war, who weren’t predominantly middle to upper income before coming to America and who don’t match the stereotype you’ve created.
How about a comparison of those Hawaiian students whose ancestors have been around a few generations? Or even 2nd or 3rd generation children of immigrants on the mainland? Do we still see the same performance gap?
Here’s my own cite. Immigrants and children of immigrants tend to do well. But the 3rd generation - the grandchildren of Asian immigrants - see test scores flat or even fall a bit.
And Hawaii, with it’s predominantly Asian/white population? Test scores aren’t better than other states with larger black populations. Actually, they appear to underperform their peers across the nation.
The whitest states have the highest average IQs. With a combined population of Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans of 29.7 percent, and a white population of 38.8 percent, and average IQ is 99 for Hawaii is respectable.