Study asian history a bit and you will run into quite a lot of names of "universal geniuses"
How about naming one? Name a Korean that can be fairly compared to Newton or Leibniz or Euclid or Plato.
Also keep in mind that the person with the highest adult IQ alive today is Korean.
Although IQ is a good indicator of academic success and real world acheivement, it is hardly the only factor in defining something as elusive as genius. When I speak of genius, I speak of accomplishments recognized by the scientific and/or academic community as having changed the entire focus or direction of a certain discipline (In Newton's case, he changed the direction of several.) As I said above, name a Korean who has done more than simply knock the ceiling off of an IQ test.
You must also remember that for much of the Middle Ages, East Asians were AHEAD of Europeans in technology and development. Simply because whites pulled ahead 400 years ago does not mean they "submerge" every race.
Whites were far ahead before the Middle Ages ever began. All the talk you hear about "brilliant Arab mathematicians" after the Classical white civilizations declined is a bit misleading considering the Arabs
borrowed their basic premises of algebra and trigonometry from the Greeks. Copernicus may have put forth the heliocentric model of the universe during the Enlightenment, but he simply rediscovered what Aristarchus and the Greek mathematicians and natural philosophers knew long, long ago. He even intentionally deleted the name of Aristarchus as a reference from his works so that he wouldn't have to give the Greek any credit, in a vain hope that few were familiar with Classical acheivement.
The fact that the heliocentric model was discovered by the Greeks (and probably the Babylonians and Persians too) yet forgotten by the intellectual heirs of the classical civlization (a la middle age Europe) shows just how cyclic civilization can be.
China was considered the most advanced civilization for hundreds of years. It certainly took creative geniuses to build such an empire.
Which century span are we talking here?
Many analysts expect China to become more powerful than either the US or the European Union.
With over a billion people shouldn't they be powerful? A billion people with Western bought nuclear technology and the advent of Western ideals of government.
Korea was having their own problems of constant invasion of both China and Japan. That peninsula has been invaded about 10,000 times. When you're busy trying to constantly fight out invaders, I assure you playing the piano like Mozart is the last thing you're worried about.
You seem to forget about all of the European internal conflicts as with Rome and the "barbarians", as well as the onslaught of the Huns, the Mongols, and the Moors (all of which were eventually defeated or at least driven out), not to mention the great plague (which killed 25% of all whites in Europe) and two world wars (this is not to mention all of the major internal wars that occurred during the Enlightenment and henceforth), yet Europe still preserveres and is still the most advanced continent on Earth. What continent has been more colonial than Europe? The sun never sat on the British empire. The Dutch had numerous outposts, as did the Belgians, and the Austrio-Hungarians and the Spanish (America) and the French (Americas)
Also you must remember that while Jews make up only 2% of the US population and 0.25% of the world population, they have won 25% of Nobel Prizes. 60% of Yale is Jewish. The odds of a person of Jewish descent is certainly about a 100 times more likely to win a Nobel Prize than any another person of White descent. If anything Jews would "submerge" any other race and/or group in creative genius. That 15 IQ points higher than Caucasians does have weight.
This is one of the few places where I might agree with you. I was going to mention the "Jews" in the previous post, but went the way of most anthropologists and lumped them into the 'caucasian" category. It is true that Jews make up less than 3% of the population and it is true that Jews have an inordinate amount of Nobel Prizes to their name, however, it is also true that the Jews have practiced what effectively amounts to eugenics for millennia, while Whites have usually practiced nothing but dysgenic trends. The Jews by their very nomadic nature are the epitomy of natural selection and "only the strong survive." It is also interesting to note that the average Jew has quite a large discrepency in verbal and performance IQ (with verbal being much higher). This data fit in well with the fact that Jews have primarily had to use verbal skills over the millennia to survive, as in their skillfull manner of buying and selling and trading which kept them afloat in Europe for millennia.
But I'll try it your way. If "whites" submerge every other race in geniuses, why do whites score lower than both asians and jews on academic tests?
Academic test scores does not a genius make, hence why genius is a rather elusive term and transcends mere academic potential. I do not agree with defining genius based on psychometric test results alone. There are many extremely high IQed people (Savant comes to mind) who will not be rememberd much beyond their lifetime. No, there is something else intangible about a Newton, more than a mere high IQ.
Why do both asians and jews have higher rates of college degrees than whites?
There are intangibles in obtaining a college degree such as perserverence, study habits, means of paying tuition, family life, job situation etc.. Though IQ is important, I think it has been shown in more than one study that about 25% of all high school drop-outs have superior IQ's. Many "super high IQ" people currently living in America today do not have any academic degrees whatsoever. Academic degrees, while perhaps good for comparing groups on a wide scale, are not very good for determining what individuals might have the highest intellectual potential. Up to about IQ 150, the frequency of academic degrees may follow a curve, but beyond that it is interesting to note that the incidence of academic degrees falls off dramatically.
It is also interesting to note how very bright people have a difficult time adjusting to standard life. Lewis Terman in his study of the gifted, found that when his Termites became adults, the degree of their http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html " to society was directly proportional to their measured IQ. Basically, the smarter the person, the more screwed up their life had become. He found that the most successful people were no more than about 150 IQ, while the 150+ crowd tended to be extremely maladjusted (especially when one climbs up the ladder to four sigma scores and beyond). In essence it appears that literally one can be too smart to achieve very much.
Please click on the above link and read Mr. Towers excellent article concerning this topic. I think anyone interested in "genius" or psychometrics will find it worth their while.
Why are whites significantly less likely to win a Nobel Prize than jews? Why have the mathematical abilities of asian countries been considered unrivaled compared to the Western World?
I wouldn't say the mathematical abilities of the Orient have been unrivaled. See the Greeks with Euclid, or perhaps the Enlightenment with Gauss, Descartes, Pascal, Reimann, Euler, or the modern day with folks such as Ed Witten (superstring theorist who happens to be Jewish).
thanks
