Since writing on intelligence and race, many who know me and that I am capable of Aspergerian levels of critical thought, such as the boss of Science2.0, cannot understand how I, the quantum relativist unforgiving of any simplification, can be suddenly so naïve as to, for instance when discussing IQ, neglect different kinds of intelligence and “creativity”. Such dismissals occur in spite of, as it is relevant for this particular example of discussing intelligence, my discussing analytic-verbal versus spatial intelligence and “emotional intelligence”, and also knowing from personal experience what can be described as a “lack of creativity/critical thinking” of East Asians (I teach East Asians for 15 years, a decade in China!). The following may help you with whether people such as me just got old, demented and “racist”.


I first talk about Ron Unz’s “How Social Darwinism Made Modern China” [The American Conservative, March/April 2013], but not because it supports “social Darwinism” or because lefties are triggered to cry about “racism” when reading the phrase “innate tendencies”. Pointing out how “progressives” deny facts, such low hanging fruit I leave to those who survive in the expanding “look how stupid liberals are” market niche. They love Ron because he dares to write “innate tendencies”. However, Ron emphasizes


“… cultural software being far more flexible and responsive than any gradual shifts in innate tendencies …”


Hidden in the small print, in footnote 34, Ron admits that his analysis is actually wrong, that the truth is yet more “racist” – I quote and then translate:


“Perhaps the strongest evidence against this causal model for the origins of current Chinese achievement comes from the difficulty of extending it to the other highly successful peoples of East Asia. Both the Japanese and the Koreans have done remarkably well in their economic and technological advancement, and also as small immigrant racial minorities in America and elsewhere. However, there is no evidence that rural life in either country had any of the major features possibly so significant for Chinese history, such as a total lack of feudal caste structure, an exceptionally commercialized system of agricultural production and land tenure, and the massive universal downward mobility due to equal division of property among male heirs. Indeed, Japanese society in particular had always been dominated by a rigidly aristocratic military caste, totally different from the exam-based meritocratic elite governing China. So to the extent that the modern behavior and performance of Japanese and Koreans closely resembles that of Han Chinese, we must look to other cultural, economic, or genetic factors in explaining this similarity rather than the legacy of the socioeconomic system discussed in this article, such as the “cold winters” hypothesis of Richard Lynn and others. See Rindermann (2012) p. 363.”


In other words, all his reasons for why China’s culture made the modern Chinese are insignificant and largely confusing cause and effect, because the other North East Asians share the most relevant characteristics, proving that race is the dominant factor.

Sorry guys, but after all the many and highly sophisticated papers that I have seen by now about suchlike, I stay with what seems just too simplistic to be reasonable:


Most of everything here relevant and what happens in the world today can be derived straight from that rape is a successful procreation strategy for human apes in Africa, but the more variable the climate is, the more future anticipating and thus caring and intelligent the apes become, period. That I am currently surrounded by the most intelligent and civilized apes (that evolved at a certain location, i.e. not Ashkenazim Jews) on this planet of the apes, the Han race, comes straight from the circumstance of that I sit here writing this wrapped in electrical blankets while not even two weeks ago I was still swatting mosquitoes. (Dear "Richard Lynn and others", it is not “cold winters”, but frigging cold winters alternating with f’n hot summers, i.e. *variable* climate; the arctic is not worse than the Sahara once animals are adapted; cold waters are teeming with life.)


Denying simple truths is not left or right, but human. We are *evolved to be* so deluded about ourselves that we can never fully grasp how deluded and constrained we are. We are evolved to reject such and instead think to be responsible/rational/reasonable actors. This is “social Darwinism”. Fashionably edgy inconvenient truths sell well, but only if still “reasonable”. Publishing in “learned journals” needs displays of sophistication, and so Dunkel/Dutton/Meisenberg etc. come up with all kinds of interesting explanations, just like their lefty sociologist adversaries, often hiding the truth against better knowledge just the same. Stuff needs to seem novel, and so Woodley-of-Menie is supposedly now the revolutionary shining light revealing what we otherwise would perhaps have never known, except for that most of it was known when people where on average still more intelligent (yes, they were, IQ is in decline!) and still knew about agriculture and the breeding of livestock, before such knowledge was conveniently widely “forgotten” over the past century. I knew most of it already as a child, from people such as Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989), and the rest is obvious if your brain is sufficiently high functioning autistic so as to be sufficiently immune to modern society’s brainwashing.


Look – why do you think that in times past, for example in China, the family of the convicted, especially on the mother’s side, was killed along with the most dangerous criminals such as traitors? Because people were evil and hated women while we today are so nice? No my friend, the answer is: They still knew that apes are just as genetically determined as any other animal, and that dysgenics destroys society. Especially in the West, this is denied, and behold, surprise surprise, what a coincidence, the West goes down the drain. The West now *inevitably* decays; this is known for about two to three generations. (Sadly, too many Chinese also do not want to see it, because being proud to be number one and pretending that you are number one because you worked so hard feels so much better than facing reality, that your competitor killed himself because he was so proud to be number one that he forgot reality and you copy him at every turn. So, dear China, you better wake up. Yes, the Han are still 91.5 percent of the Chinese population, but so were the Caucasian non-Hispanic Whites in the USA still in 1950, too. No matter you were here 500 years or 5000; messing up a single generation can be fatal.)


Similar to this “simplistic racist nonsense”, the g-factor for general intelligence is, although being only a single dimension, almost all one needs to further consider in order to scientifically understand current problems – other issues are almost negligible, no matter how much you desire that it could not possibly be this simple, that one cannot neglect hundreds of other factors in order to model and predict crime rates, or “over-representation” of males in mathematics, the GDP of nations or the trajectory of whole cultures. (I am too lazy to add links just to appear more scientific - go find it yourself - I wrote plenty about it, so did others.)


This is characteristic for fundamental insight. I did not change, and there is very little difference here with my whistle blowing on the memristor hype for example, or my work on rejecting pseudo-science in quantum mechanics, or … gee there is so much I did to destroy my career, I start becoming sad trying to remember. It is the same every time: That which you need to fundamentally understand is usually relatively simple, but this is rejected, and often precisely because it is simple, too simple to sell your thoughts as novel, too unsophisticated to be published in academia, too disrespectful to the heaps of nonsense that are published instead and demand to be positively acknowledged, too simple to fill weekly columns or yet another book, and too simple to be admitted as one’s own mistake.

Remark: On my claim that "too many Chinese also do not want to see it, because ..."
Apart from what I personally experience (1), the appearance of being anti minorities can bring harsh repercussions in China (2), and the "Communist Party of China" is still somewhat preoccupied avoiding going the way of its Russian equivalent, so they focus on the fall of Russia rather than the fall of the West(3), see for example William Wan: "In China, Soviet Union’s failure drives decisions on reform." [Washington Post, March 23, 2013]

However, Chinese scholars grouped under the heading “Second-Generation Ethnic Policy,” favor state-driven assimilation, the minority nationalities shedding their ethnic identities and becoming absorbed by the Han Chinese, see for example Angang Hu (Tsinghua University, director of the Institute of Public Administration), Hu Lianhe (special researcher of Tsinghua University National Research Institute): "The Bedrock of the Chinese Dream Is the Integration of the Peoples of China into a Single Nation-Race."
(胡鞍钢,清华大学国情研究院院长、清华大学公共管理学院教授; 胡联合,清华大学国情研究院特约研究员: "中国梦的基石是中华民族的国族一本化")

Chinese researchers are also more free than Western researchers to research dysgenics and have published on how the average IQ also in China has saturated the (mainly nutritional in my opinion) Flynn effect and starts to decline, see for example Mingrui Wang, John Fuerst, Jianjun Ren: "Evidence of dysgenic fertility in China." [Intelligence 57(2016)15–24]
Mingrui Wang is at the Beijing University of Agriculture.