Tuesday 15 September 2015

Asians: bright, but not curious?


The IQ view of the world is that the citizens of China, Japan and Korea are brighter than citizens of Europe and the other European derived countries that comprise The West. Not only do Orientals, or Far Easteners, or East Asians get higher scores on intelligence tests, but they also do extremely well on scholastic tests, including Maths and Science. Therefore, we would assume that they would be over-represented in the highest realms of scientific achievement, and collect more than their population-based share of Nobel prizes.

Not so. Europeans gain 20 times as many prizes as Orientals. Are the intelligence tests wrong, or do Orientals lack some other essential ingredient of genius? Talking of which, have you heard the story about the Dutchman, the Finn and the Japanese gentleman? How on earth have Kenya Kura (Gifu Shotoku Gakuen University, Japan), Jan te Nijenhuis (University of Amsterdam) and Edward Dutton (University of Oulu, Finland) managed to get together? Such an improbable trio can only have arisen from the London Conference on Intelligence, and whose next conference will be in May 2016. If you are researching intelligence and are either at the beginning of your career, or well-established but finding it difficult to get informed debate about your work, send me details about your research. Be warned: we have no funds.

Why do Northeast Asians win so few Nobel Prizes?  Kenya Kura, Jan te Nijenhuis, Edward Dutton. Comprehensive Psychology 2015, Volume 4, Article 15 ISSN 2165-2228.   DOI: 10.2466/04.17.CP.4.15


The trio say:  From ancient natural philosophy to modern physics, the history of science has been dominated by Europeans. It would not be controversial to state that the most distinguished scholars in the world post-1900 have been Nobel laureates and Fields medalists.  Table 1  shows the number these prominent people by racial category, which is taken from  Lynn (2007 ), and here extended to 2014.  Table 1  shows that Europeans have won 0.6 Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals per million, whilst the Northeast Asians have won only 0.03 per million, which is about one twentieth of the Europeans’ achievement.   


In simple figures, the score is: Europeans 626, Northeast Asians 35, South Asian/North African 14, Africans 2.

Discussing the anomaly that Northeast Asians are bright but don’t achieve the highest levels of scholarship, they say: Jews are very good students and at the same time good scholars. Conversely, Northeast Asians are exceptional students, but they make up only 8–9% of university professors in 2011 (National Center for Educational Statistics) and less than 5% of Nobel laureates.  

What is going on? Under the rubric of “Novelty Seeking” the authors say:  To become a successful scientist, one has to be interested in something novel, which requires intellectual curiosity. This kind of mentality is not required in student life, where theories and relevant facts are already systematically presented in textbooks. Rote memory is not, however, sufficient to become a good scientist. Some kind of novel perspective is necessary to extend or replace established ways of thinking.

They add: analyses by Simonton (1998, 2009)  have found that more original thinkers are moderately high in aspects of psychopathic personality, such as low Conscientiousness and low Agreeableness, which they combine with very high intelligence.

They continue: People high in individualism actively seek for associations, friendships, and partners in a horizontal relationship without a strong authority. Europeans score high on individualism, and science requires this individualistic mindset. When goals are defined by the state or the organization one belongs to, it is much more difficult to pursue private values. [ ]   Individualistic mentality has been indexed by the Dutch comparative psychologist Geert Hofstede (1980, 2002), reporting a difference of 1.98 standard deviations between major European countries and six Northeast Asian countries.

The authors create a genetics-based curiosity index q using proxies for novelty-seeking, social anxiety, and fear of exclusion, which they then test. Here are the national results. (By the way, note the high score for Spain).



Model 1 with IQ alone (5% variance explained) is not as good as Model 2 with IQ and curiosity (19% variance explained). Standard errors of the estimate (remember those?) are reduced in model 2. They conclude:  The novel approach specified three genetic underpinnings of individualistic curiosity: DRD4 7-repeat, 5HTTLPR long allele, and OPRM1. Then these gene frequencies were incorporated into the derivation of  q  indices of nations, as a measure of the tendency to be curious and independent-minded. Lastly, we found that the regression analysis showed that not only IQ but also the q index is important for a population to produce prominent scholars.

They end with a final flourish:  Our findings suggest that not only general intelligence, but also various genetic differences among populations have played crucial roles in the progress of science. Future research could focus on the question whether the mean  q  index is the same for original populations and immigrant populations. For instance, all awards to Chinese prize winners were awarded for work carried out at European institutes. Traditionally, Chinese culture has been more conservative than that of Europe and relatively unwelcoming of or even hostile toward new ideas and does not allow single researchers to be outstanding, which is often ascribed to the Confucian doctrine ( Wade, 2014) . This knowledge would enable us to decompose national academic attainments into influences of genetic factors and purely cultural transmissions.

It would seem that although Northeast Asians are brighter than Europeans on intelligence by about 5 IQ points they are lower in q, a proxy for individualistic curiosity. So, disorganised, uncooperative, individualistic and eccentric Europeans may still have a place in the new global economy, if only as comedians telling jokes about Japanese, Dutch and Finnish researchers.


  1. I have an additional theory: the Asian brain is like a neural network that has a more nodes than the white brain, but it is laid out with more nodes per layer, and less total layers. As a results, Asians are faster at processing, but are not as good at processing abstract ideas, or noticing abstract connections, which is required for genius.

    -Arc Giant

    1. Dear Anonymous,
      interesting theory. Any data to back it up?

    2. Hi, I am Kenya Kura, one of the authors.

      I agree that Asians are less competent in abstract thinking. So you may be right to suspect the difference in cortical layers etc. I would rather simply assume that Asians are less competent in verbal ability, which is the basis of abstract thinking.

  2. Actually, it's not just Northeast Asians:



    Also the Fields Medals, where the divide is even more pronounced.


    There's a pronounced variation within Europe, one that follows a predictable pattern. More on that in a future post.

  3. After the industrial revolution, westerners come up with the notion that those Mongoloid features are nothing but an ugly feature, let alone excelling in science and math. Then it becomes clear that only some dubious index will separate from the supreme race and the slum. They came up with the "IQ" thing.

    East Asians beat the hell out of IQ thing, but still not enough, and now they come with another index called "Curiosity index" or "Q".

    Nobel Prize is controversial, but at least could serve as a proxy for advancement in the science field, there's no denying that. But what calls for attention is every time, westerns do something out of curiosity, it receives subtle denial yet hesitant approval. For eg., HeLa cell line. A scientist who secretly developed a cell line from a Black women cancerous cells without her knowledge, but they all look from the advancement of the science fields at large. There's lawsuit, outcry especially from Black community and yet it never becomes the large societal ethical issue.

    Now when Chinese scientists began CRISPR technique to manipulate germ line, all westerners start crying foul of "Ethical Issue", let alone their so-called "advancement of the scientific fields."

    What we are witnessing here is Nobody but nobody likes to be outsmarted by somebody else. Look a class full of 100 White students, there always will be one student outsmarting all other 99 students. There's no unity, or no compromise. It's either Do or Die.

    But add another layer of complexity by mixing the class with different racial backgrounds, we will see each race side with each other and will bash others, sometimes even at the expense of the "Advancement of the Scientific Fields". We can always argue in the blurry area if it's because of real ethical issue or just a paranoid behavior of one race over another.

    In the end we will see who stays longer than the rest of us.

    1. "East Asians beat the hell out of IQ thing, but still not enough, and now they come with another index called "Curiosity index" or "Q". "

      Who is "they"? Kenya Kura is an East Asian.

      " Now when Chinese scientists began CRISPR technique to manipulate germ line, all westerners start crying foul of "Ethical Issue", let alone their so-called "advancement of the scientific fields." "

      The more relevant question: Where was CRISPR primarily developed?

    2. The fact that Kenya Kura is an East Asian doesn't answer the common notion that Westerners used to hold superiority complex before East Asia takes off their economy.

      "The more relevant question: Where was CRISPR primarily developed?"

      I could also ask where was gunpowder invented and developed?

      Which aspect of the discovery and development you want to look at? Original discovery or subsequent modification?

      Gunpowder was invented or accidentally discovered in China. But Europeans modified it to take advantage for their own good.

      Now CRISPR was invented or developed in the west, but if China wants to take advantage of the technique for her own good, what would you say?

      Well, CRISPR might not be a holy grail, China would probably stumble upon some road blocks or hit a jackpot, who knows?

      The fact of the matter here is, when China has lots of resources to dispense, it's more likely they will hit a jackpot sooner or later as long as they keep trying. It's the same thing that had happened during US ascendency in science fields when Britain was leading ahead. If you have an R&D expenditure to dispense, you're bound to stumble upon discoveries.

      Look at the UK now, what kind of scientific advancement they have been making in the last couple of decades?

      The last time I checked, there was a paper published from University of Liverpool on the effects of handshake and fist bump on germ spread. What kind of study is that?

      Another one from the UK, I vaguely remember, if you smell "fart", you'd live longer. I'm not making this up. But that's what the study is about. What kind of study the UK has been making in the last couple of years? Their R&D expenditure is shrinking.

      So to come back to your question, he who has the money makes the rules. Not the beggar. You can develop wherever in the world, only if you have a resource to modify it to your own benefit, ...

    3. It is who you know that count, not the originator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._C._George_Sudarshan#Controversy_regarding_Nobel_Prize

      "Sudarshan and others physicists sent a letter to the Nobel Committee claiming that the P representation had more contributions of “Sudarshan” than “Glauber.” The letter goes on to say that Glauber criticized Sudarshan’s theory—before renaming it the “P representation” and incorporating it into his own work. In an unpublished letter to the New York Times, Sudarshan calls the “Glauber-Sudarshan representation” a misnomer, adding that “literally all subsequent theoretic developments in the field of Quantum Optics make use of” Sudarshan’s work— essentially, asserting that he had developed the breakthrough.[14]"

      "Sudarshan also commented on not being selected for the 1979 Nobel, "Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow and Abdus Salam built on work I had done as a 26-year-old student. If you give a prize for a building, shouldn’t the fellow who built the first floor be given the prize before those who built the second floor?"[15]"

      Plenty more in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Physics

    4. You are the kind of person that ascribes hidden agendas to others. You should attack the theories and the arguments, not the person. Just for the sake of argument: suppose the authors all had hidden agendas, you would still have to counter their arguments.

    5. Dear Jan, I agree. Attacking motives is the best way of delaying the evaluation of arguments

    6. @Reo: Your comment is paranoid nonsense. It tells us a lot about your own attitudes, but not much about the real world. When Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon constructed the first successful intelligence test, they gave absolutely no thought to how East Asians would perform on the test (or, at any rate, left no evidence of having given the matter any thought). They were solely concerned with how French children would perform relative to one another, and how reliable the test would be in doing what it was meant to do, namely, identify children with below-average intelligence for their age. Even if they'd wanted to compare children by race, they'd have struggled to find a sample of non-white children, as the demographics of France were very different in 1900 from what they are today. When the first test that replaced "mental age" with "IQ" as its primary measurement term was developed, it's author, Lewis Terman, gave no thought to making a comparison between white and East Asian children, either. Preferring to avoid any complications that might arise from a racially mixed sample, he used only "middle class" white children in his standardization sample. He did test some black and Mexican children, but only mentioned this in passing, remarking that he was shocked how many of them had sub-normal intelligence, and suggesting that eugenics could solve the problem (forlornly adding that politics would probably prevent that solution from being applied). Nothing about East Asians, though.

      There were a few studies comparing white versus black intelligence, but the most significant work in the early 20th century IQ literature to make a big deal about race was Carl Brigham's 1923 book, A Study of American Intelligence. This dealt with the black-white difference fairly briefly, and spent most of its length examining the "Nordic" versus "Alpine" difference. Brigham was concerned that the lower scores of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe were hereditary, and would drag America down. East Asians are barely mentioned, and not analyzed.

      There is, in fact, barely any comment about East Asian IQ in the intelligence literature until someone in Canada noticed in the 1960s that East Asian children do better than white children in school exams.

      If your paranoid fantasy had any grounds in reality, the literature on intelligence would look very different from the way it actually looks.

    7. There is definitely a bias. Arxiv moderators does not allow many Asians to even upload papers and get a date time stamp. Anyways this century is the Asian century and soon we will see countries from Asia beating everyone in Olympics, science & technology and economy. It's just a matter of another 20 years. People who believe in white supremacy can live in their dreamworld for another 20 year.

    8. There is definitely a bias. Arxiv moderators does not allow many Asians to even upload papers and get a date time stamp. Anyways this century is the Asian century and soon we will see countries from Asia beating everyone in Olympics, science & technology and economy. It's just a matter of another 20 years. People who believe in white supremacy can live in their dreamworld for another 20 year.

    9. When is this yellow wave going to begin?

  4. Personally I'd have omitted the counterfeit Nobel (economics) and the silly Nobel (literature). That wouldn't have changed the conclusions, would it?

    It's interesting that post-1900 refers to the period after the Europeans (mainly the Limeys, and then the Krauts) had changed human history with their extraordinary Industrial Revolution. In other words after the world-changing period of innovation; in other other words, in a period when it was comparatively easy to stand on the shoulders of the Industrial Revolution pioneers.

    Presumably there were earlier periods of history when the boot would have been on the other foot. Were Europeans contributing much to civilisation in 2000BC?

    1. > Personally I'd have omitted the counterfeit Nobel (economics) and the silly Nobel (literature). That wouldn't have changed the conclusions, would it?

      I don't know about Economics or Peace, but omitting Literature would weaken the results since great literature still involves novelty and innovation - Kipling, Sartre, Yeats, Shaw, Mann, Lewis, Hesse, Gide, Eliot, Faulkner, Hemingway, Camus, Steinbeck, Beckett, Singer, Miłosz, Márquez, Ōe, Heaney, Naipaul etc. You can't accuse them of not being willing to try out new styles, new topics, travel to exotic places, investigate obscure matters, and all sorts of things well-described by a term like 'curiosity'.

      > Were Europeans contributing much to civilisation in 2000BC?

      Probably not, but since this is about *genetics* and not about bogus assumptions of perfect continuity of the essences of races across millennia without end, if you wanted to look at very distant periods (during which there have been many population shifts), you would have to find some ancient DNA to redo the analysis on...

    2. > Were Europeans contributing much to civilization in 2000BC?
      This was population density issue I think. You probably need some thousand people in one place to not only to have good odds for a few decent advisers with high IQ, but also to create enough occupational specialization. Those factors wasn't there until Roman time.

    3. How many in the Nobel Literature selection committee can read Korean, Japanese or Chinese literature directly ??

    4. The last couple of decades some Nobel prizes have lost a lot of their prestigiousness, such as the Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize for Literature. However, the one for physics has always been prestigious.

    5. "However, the one for physics has always been prestigious." I tend to agree, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. Every year the prize is award, often to three people, even though fundamental physics has been stuck for thirty or more years. A new Newton, or at least a new Maxwell/Planck/Einstein, is perhaps required. But still the chaps get their gongs and their cash.

    6. What is the point of using derogatory terms to describe the British and Germans?

    7. What is the point of using derogatory terms to describe the British and Germans?

    8. > How many in the Nobel Literature selection committee can read Korean, Japanese or Chinese literature directly ??

      How many of the Swedes on the committee can read English, Spanish, French, German, Polish, or Japanese directly? Yet nevertheless, those languages and more are represented among the laureates. Translation is a thing.

    9. So many wrongs make one right? The logic seems questionable.

      The Nobel foundation can do whatever with their money. But your assertion on using the Nobel Literature Prices as one of the international benchmarks needs to be justified, especially from your own words you seemed to be questioning their competence in other languages as well. The assertion is either confusing or insincere.

  5. It seems like the IQ-only model would perform a lot better if they took into account the fraction of population that was Jewish... the mean IQ is not going to well reflect that difference in tails.

    Also, where did they pull these specific alleles from? They come off as weirdly scattershot and arbitrary - they aren't even all on the same psychological construct, one (OPRM1) is backed up by a single small study about tossing balls, and one predictor isn't even a genetic - just some scale (right after they rubbished a whole bunch of other scales for not being consistent with each other and explained that's why they were going with genetics!). This reminds me of the old candidate-gene studies where they picked some gene X, came up with a story, and hey presto in their data it just so happened to turn out to be p=0.05 (not that they had much of a tendency to replicate; I'm sure we remembered what happened with all the IQ candidate-gene hits).

    At least Piffer's paper confined itself to just IQ and used the full set of known IQ SNPs so you could be reasonably confident there was no magic behind the scenes in choice of which SNPs exactly to regress on.

    Considering the difficulties the GWASes are having with OCEAN, with, most recently, no SNP hits for Extraversion in n=63k ("Meta-analysis of Genome-Wide Association Studies for Extraversion: Findings from the Genetics of Personality Consortium", van den Berg et al 2015 http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephanie_Van_den_Berg/publication/281713367_Meta-analysis_of_Genome-Wide_Association_Studies_for_Extraversion_Findings_from_the_Genetics_of_Personality_Consortium/links/55f7ca8408aec948c473c25c.pdf), I don't know how much weight to put on this...

    Also, no attempt to control for any kind of autocorrelation.

    1. I certainly agree. In Russia for example great part of high quality research was done by Jews. They should go through all the prize winners and pick up the Jews.

    2. It would make a lot of sense to look at the 3-alleles in Jewish samples. If they don't have notably high rates, that throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the theory. (Could it be that curiosity here serves mostly as a proxy for the willingness of rich countries to protect Jewish minorities and that's where the correlated performance is coming from? Or we could imagine other theories based on how fraction of population Jewish predicts Nobels and how their genetics shakes out.)

    3. Dear Gwern, percentage of Jew in the population: interesting variable to add to the model.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. These three genes were selected more or less arbitrarily, but the point is that, if these correlated genes show some metagene, it should be something to do with personality differences among populations. Eventually, they may turn out to be false positives, but it does not negate the importance of the problem itself. No control for autocorrelation due to genetic drift etc. obviously lessens the credibility of the result and gives us further direction of research. Thanks!

    6. > if these correlated genes show some metagene, it should be something to do with personality differences among populations.

      I don't think that has to be true. If, for example, one went fishing for statistical-significance (either through a formal procedure equivalent to testing many or simply informally as part of analysis in what Gelman calls 'the garden of forking paths'), and made sure each of the 3 final genes was correlated enough, then I believe that would still yield a 'factor' (created by the selection process) even though there would be almost zero chance that this factor was real. Something like Berkson's paradox.

  6. As Panda has noted many years ago:

    1. Shining badges of Nobel Science Prize and Field Medal are a function of

    A. Wealth: never ever one can find a poor Nobel Science Winner. Every prize winners along with most if not all nominees have been from world-famous research institutions, universities and labs well-funded by a fortune. Research is expensive. Super-research is super-expansive. e.g. Let alone fundamental research funding, both China and South Korea were staving only 40 years ago. North Korea is still starving now. Japan's funding only became at the level of the West since the late 1980s. Let's be honest, without sheer wealth foundation and continuous large investment along the whole of their value chain, winning Nobel Science Prize and Field Medal is just a wet dream.

    B. Prejudice: this includes, so obviously, cultural, language, class, racial prejudices because the prize nominations have been controlled by the subjective opinions of a tightly-held tiny group of Europeans only.

    C. Reasonablely high IQ: it's not ultra-high IQ. Many of world's 160+ or 170+ super high IQers die of being nobodies, while many Nobel Prize winners merely have IQ high enough to hold suitcases of the former. To be Nobel Science Winner one must be smart or even very smart, not definitely not ultra smart.

    D. Networking: if you're an ultra high IQ individual with revolutionary theories but no proper personal strong networking with friends in the right places, the chance you will be nominated, let alone being the prize winner, is close to zero. This factor also explains why the numbers of super+ultra high IQers of both White Euros and East Asians are orders of magnitude higher than that of Ashkenazi Jews (i.e. it's just simple maths according to the total population and avg IQ of each, almost regardless of tiny differences, if any, of the shapes of the fat tails -- Panda doesn't know why so many people easily fall into that stupid trap of using Nobel Prize to judge a group's IQ), yet it's the latter who has taken the lion share of the Nobel Sciences. What else could that be, except i) networking, etc except IQ, or ii) a mistaken of measurement with Ashkenazi Jew's IQ, which is not 110, but like 550? ROFL.

    E. Pure luck; since the prize is depending on the subjective opinions of several guys. Luck is definitely a factor here.

    F. Stand-on-the-shoulder-of-the-Giant Effect (as others already mentioned): the most recent tech revolution - the Industrial revolution - happened in the West, hence by the sheer inertia of industrialisation, the West has logically been enjoying many things such as the closer proximity to locations of centres of excellence of learning, first hand experiences, deeper pocket funding, etc which majority of Nobel Science Prizes were based upon.

  7. (cont'd.)

    2. Shining badges of Nobel Prize (inclu. Peace and Literature) are a function of all of above mentioned in 1, plus Political Correctness.

    To use "Q" (intellectual curiosity) by the authors is a red herring at best, stupidity-in-full-swing at worst. So it's likely a garbage-in-garbage-out research paper. It is because IQ , Panda believes, is highly positively correlated with intellectual curiosity by almost default, as one of the very first indications, almost like a second nature, of a higher IQer being his unquestionable high degree of intellectual curiosity. The difference is only that under certain cultural or economical background or other whole host of other influences and considerations, a high IQ person may or may not choose to fully exhibit his high level of intellectual curiosity in public and/or all the time.

    Surely East Asians' collective Confucius cultural factor has affected the chance of going for individualistic Nobel Prize It's highly encouraged and rewarding to be an individualist in the West, whereas inside the East Asia it's dis-encouraged and punished most of the time. But that is not a make-or-break factor as it's made out to be. Even with Confucius culture, if factors of point 1 are all satisfied, one can still have a decent shot at Nobel Science.

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. It's worth noting that Japanese performance in Nobel Prizes has become somewhat respectable from the 2000s. There have been 14 winners since 2000 - fully two thirds of their all time total of 21 (Peace Prizes excluded). Possibly the world's most brilliant (or craziest - nowhere is really in a position to tell) right now is Shinichi Mochizuki.

    Per capita this is comparable to traditional European scientific powerhouses such as Germany (9) and France (10), and far better than the likes of Italy, Spain, Poland. Though the Anglo-Saxons continue to vastly outperform at the world scale, e.g. the US (99) and the UK (18).

    So any HBD-like explanation apart from explaining Asian underperformance also has to explain the recent Japanese surge.

    One possible non-HBD explanation: There is a lag time of about 20-30 years before doing something Nobel worthy and actually getting the prize. Plus, the age at which people make significant discoveries continues creeping upwards; far gone are the days when you could master some area of science in your teens and early twenties and start making discoveries. For instance, Andrew Wiles and Grigory Perelman - two other 21st century mathematical giants - both made their seminal contributions in their 40s. We know that the Japan of the 1940s and to an extent the 1950s was still Third Worldish, with malnourishment, etc. The Japs score very high in IQ tests - though PISA results are not cardinally above those of the native Germans - but they are applied to Japanese teenagers from the 2000s. The guys actually doing the Nobel Prize winning are in their 50s, 60s, 70s, even 80s i.e. were born in the 1930-1960 period when Japan was doing relatively worse to the US and most of the West. So there is this potentially very important generational issue/differential national Flynn effect to consider.

    The fact that the Anglos - the Brits and the Americans, not so much the Aussies and Canucks though - are so much more successful at winning Nobels per capita should also be studied. One obvious factor is the high reputation of US and UK universities; a cursory glance indicates that a significant but far from dominant percentage of their Nobel Prize winners are immigrants. Native knowledge of the English language that is the world's scientific lingua franca is also surely a huge and underappreciated bonus.

    Another issue is the share of funding that goes to fundamental as opposed to applied research. Really seminal discoveries tend to be made by people working on fundamental science. But funding applied research is more lucrative especially in the short-term since it is more directly relevant and is more easily patented. Countries with strong financially independent universities - and we are really talking about the US here - can provide lavish funding to fundamental research. In less altruistic (non Hajnal) countries where universities are poorer and more dependent on state or corporate funding and thus have to answer more to taxpayers and/or shareholders, research priorities and funding will tend to skew more towards applied research.

    1. " There have been 14 winners since 2000 - fully two thirds of their all time total of 21 " just noting that over time each Nobel has tended to be awarded to multiple recipients while they were more individual in earlier years

    2. Interesting. Many of your theories could be tested empricially. Why don't you write a reply to our paper?

    3. Actually, we believe that not only cultural things, but also national wealth, human network, scientific traditions, Flynn effect and so on matters a lot for the numbers of prominent scholars in the last century. Japan has got some more Nobels in this century, which should be a good case for these conditions to matter in reality. I would not doubt that at some point in the near future, China and Korea will produce a fair number of great scholars.

      But if you look at the numberYou can simply look at the proportions of East Asian Americans at Caltech or U.C. campuses. Among undergrads, 40% or more are Asians, but graduate students are something like 20% (depending on departments). Faculty members are well less than 10%.

      It would be hard to miss this simple fact. This may be similar to the situation that few Asian CEOs of Fortune 500, which may suggest that other than "curiosity" is involved to be very successful in any field.

    4. Since no one paid attention to this earlier, I'm posting it again:

      Nobel Prizes per country per capita, scientific prizes only:


      "So any HBD-like explanation apart from explaining Asian underperformance also has to explain the recent Japanese surge.

      One possible non-HBD explanation"

      Is there such a thing as a non-HBD explanation?

      From the above it's clear that Japan does fairly poorly on a per capita basis – better than the other East Asian countries but not much better than Eastern Europe.

      And see this: this is total scientific publications per country per capita:


      In terms of output, Japan approaches the Western European countries, but is still well behind the top producers.

      (Now, this of course is the total number of publications – not their quality. As Amir Sariaslan has been fond of mocking on Twitter lately, a good bit of scientific publications – if not the majority – are total crap.)

      But, more interesting is the pronounced East-West split in Europe. It partially follows the Hajnal line, but more so the Germanic component of the country, especially with Nobels. The matter is far more involved than either economic development or a handful of genes.

  10. Based on past events, especially the most recent one, East Asians even those born in US need their heads examined if they want to study pure science.

  11. Ken Kura, Jan te Nijenhuis, and Ed Dutton would like to thank all the contributors for their interesting contributions.

  12. Thank you very much! I think you are really right.

    The paper was initiated as a simple question of an apparent population difference, which was not at all tribal. If Newton and Einstein were great, why don't we respect them as great scholars? In my book, it is much more natural and humane to simply appreciate their intellectual achievements. Right?

  13. Santoculto:


    act like an adult and go on assaulting Panda's points in details by all means, but not Panda's personality.

    Can't you see that it's PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that not single widely recognised HBD theory could explain why:

    about 99% 160+ super high IQers in the world die being nobodies, while tiny portion of (relatively) low IQers - 140+ and 150+ IQers or even less - got Nobel Science, if Nobel Science is such an objective measure of ingelligence?

    ...unless of course Nobel Science isn't such an objective measure AT ALL, therefore the entire discussion is based on a false promise - so-called garbage-in-garbage-out. (Panda offered some explainations of that already)

    That's the reason why the authors bring out "intellectual curiosity" factor as an explaination, and on top of that trying to link it to some mystical "innovative"genes. Yes, it might be possible, but it remains as a speculation before they can bring some recognised evidences to the table.

    While they're doing so, however, they seem to suggest that these mystical intellectual curiosity genes have only existed since the Industrial Revolution till now, and conveniently forget that the human innovation history goes perhaps longer than last several hundred years. Hello??

    Then try to explain to Panda how the Han Chinese were innovating so much in some earlier peiords while the Europeans(and the Ashkenazi Jews) were no where in comparison?

    If the 3 authors lived during that period, would they also propose that Han Chinese suddenly got some "intellectual curiosity"genes while the Europeans/Jews none?

    And why these genes suddenly disappeared in thin air just right before the Industrial Revolution?

    And how the heck such genes equally magically appeared in the blood of Ashkanazis and Euros right at a time?

    If there had been some kind of "Int'l Confucius Prizes", in Chinese language, nominated by a handful of Han Chinese scholars, in imperial China during those periods, could Anglo-Saxon-Ashkenazis have got 1 or nil?

    And Panda would like to see the avg IQ analysis of Europeans and Ashkennazis Jews according to those prizes as well please, if it is not too much to ask.


    Dunno the rest of you, but this kind of obvious selective bias sounds a bit too rich for Panda to bear, particularly when the 3 authors are not nobody but well-trained academics and shouldn't have made such a simple mistake.

    This is as laughable as analysing the pace 14m r towards pace 16m during 100m sprint when Panda is outpacing everyone at the point, and hence suggesting that Panda runs faster than Usain Bolt and must possess some extra sporting genes.ROFL


  14. Act adult = never talk about himself in the third person.

    Western meritocratic system that was copied from the Chinese meritocratic system (Western school model is based on the Confucian model) is not perfect, is pragmatic (like the original) and is based on the idea that intelligent people of any kind (cognition + personality) will learn to perfection, zeal and pleasure, knowledge being exposed. But the world is not this '' Care Bears '' as they think.

    your point again. Yes, '' Chineses '' innovated much in the past. No more today. And the blame was the implementation and emphasis on a meritocratic system that values '' good '' behavior (or conformity) and storage capacity without passion. If the Chinese want, they can become creative again. The problem is that they are very pragmatic. The Japanese is a perfectionist, the Chinese are pragmatic-perfectionist.

    You have 15 million Jews and they dominated Europe and the US in just one century. Best, no 15 million of them, their entirety. But a tiny minority of them, the cognitive elite Ashkenazi.

    You have 1.3 billion Chinese and if it were true that they were so much more than Europeans and others, then we would have the total Chinese dominance in science for example. You do not need to fully master the science, only a small proportion of Chinese minority in relation to the total population of China, which were of geniuses and in the right places and we would have a broad domain of them (or of you) in the world. But this is not happening.

    I repeat, the Chinese copied step by step the industrial revolution. Far from being creative, it is pure pragmatism.

    '' We will destroy our forests, pollute our air and bring down our historical treasure to build buildings horizontal boring ''.

    This last part of your comment makes no sense. Less ad hominem and more enlightening observations and that can add more knowledge and less name-calling.

    Stop crying excuses and show me evidence that '' the '' Chineses remain innovative.

  15. Asian countries did not go through the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, nor the accompanying religious wars. These were large, important events. Some of the wars lasted decades.

    There seems to be a belief in progress, which some date to the Enlightenment. If an area has not undergone the Reformation and large-scale warfare over religious beliefs, does copying a later movement, i.e. the Industrial Revolution, automatically transmit the values and beliefs of the originators of the Industrial Revolution?

    I don't think it does. Why the rush to genes to something which is more easily explained as an accident of history?

    After all, but for timing, a few hundred years in the past one could be writing, "well, see all the Europeans starting these ghastly wars over religious practices. It must be something in the genes..."

    What if it's the side-effect of the serial death of empires on the same land mass? First the Roman Empire (West), then the Roman Empire (East), then the Holy Roman Empire, leaving behind many small, independent duchies, principalities, countries.

    Video of national boundaries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caxAAZsL-wQ.

    The Nobel Prizes are a relatively new phenomenon.

  16. ''Thank you very much! I think you are really right.

    The paper was initiated as a simple question of an apparent population difference, which was not at all tribal. If Newton and Einstein were great, why don't we respect them as great scholars? In my book, it is much more natural and humane to simply appreciate their intellectual achievements. Right?''

    Thank you!! =)

    I don't understand your question, sorry!


  17. Dear East Coast,
    this begs the question: Where did the 'historical accidents' come from. They simply fell out of the sky in that part of the world and not in other parts of the world?

    1. Dear te Nijenhuis,

      If Panda may, your question boils down to the good n' old focus point amongst historians that why the Industrial Revolution happened in England (note:it was England, not Demark nor the Western Europe) in the 19th century first, but not in China.

      Panda would say that there is no "if"or "accidents" in history strictly speaking, but evolution which started from the time immemorial and has been ongoing since. Evolution of human societies didn't start to count from Mr Nobel and his prize while he was studying his explosives, however interesting they might be.

      This begs several other perhaps even more interesting questions to your arguments:

      1. Why the Industrial Revolution happened in England, but not, say Denmark or Austria? Is that also due to the lack of "intellectual curiosity" genes of the latter according to you central theme, if you're consistent?

      2. If you were born in the 14th century, or 15th, or 13th, or 12th, or 11th, or 10th, or 9th...or 23th century, would you also speculate that the Europeans in general lack "intellectual Curiosity"genes vís-a-vís the Han Chinese, and wonder why they fell out of that part of the sky instead of other parts?

      3. As we all know it abundantly clear, would you agree that no matter how intelligent you're, even with IQ of 200+ discovering a dozen interesting things, you would pretty much kiss that explosives Prize goodbye in the most part of the 20th century and 21st century as we speak? Would you argue that it's due to the lack of Intellectual Curiosity genes as well?

      Thank you very much!

    2. Dear Jan te Nijenhuis,

      History is influenced by multiple factors, many of which have no human input.

      Geography? The combination of fertile land, navigable rivers, no deserts, a relatively mild climate, and mountains that concentrate travel into small mountain passes influences history.

      The Mongol effect. Yes, Europe faced some Mongols. It did not face the prolonged campaigns Asia endured. The Mongol habit of wiping out cities (including all inhabitants) could have changed Asia's cultural customs and knowledge. Is the inheritance genetic? Cultural? Both? How does one decide, lacking a control?

      The Cultural Revolution. Closing all universities and limiting education given to the children of elites has to have limited the production of preeminent scientists.

      Small data set. Winning the Nobel Prize is not easily predicted.

      Institutions. If Northeast Asian scientists are winning Nobel Prizes from European universities, then there might be a difference in university culture.

      Subheading under institutions: Professor scientists in the West are often able to patent their discoveries and inventions. Are scientists in Northeast Asia able to do this in Asia? (I admit I don't know.) People do work harder for personal reward.

    3. @Jan te Nijenhuis:

      "Where did the 'historical accidents' come from. They simply fell out of the sky in that part of the world and not in other parts of the world?"

      HBD Chick would be proud. :)

    4. Did it fall out of the sky?


      Its funny we think we know all forces at work in the world.

    5. So, are you proposing a testable hypothesis?

  18. Hey Santo, how many times Panda has to tell you that you're furiously beating around the bushes at the wrong side of the river?

    If the existence of A is not entirely depending on the existence of B, then it's pointless to ask why A is not there while B is, or to question the existence of B per se after all.

  19. I'm hoping you refute point to point my last review which was directed to you.

    What's your problem to accept that his people is not as spectacularly superior and perfect as you imagine ??

    And still questioning (ie, mourning) why the industrial revolution did not happen in China.

    The typical Chinese thinking

    - pragmatic
    - simplistic
    - Non-empathic
    - Non-creative

    I have spoken more than once to you that the industrial revolution has caused and causes more disorders than solutions, and you even want to discuss it because of your wonderful country not have been a pioneer in the mass depredation of natural resources, particularly wildlife, as well as to enslave the working class, treating it as fuel to the fire. You are very stupid. Tribalistic people should be banned from giving their irrelevant opinions. Their I already know what will be.

    The world is lower, the empire of the middle is more than perfect.

    Your dear China had 500 years to get over the West and failed. At least they did not go invading other people's land and slaughtering innocents, yet.

    Eastern accepted his surrender and contextual inferiority in the late nineteenth century and began to copy their winners, even for more than obvious reasons, because while '' they '' were inventing electricity, '' you guys '' were referencing imperial families and their consorts.

    I'm not white and ashkennazis fan. I want the two of them explode into a thousand pieces. Paris is beautiful, Madrid has history, Berlin is post-modern, Moscow is colossal. Are mausoleums of the Caucasian collective insanity that claims the lives of millions of innocent and stupid. They are all stupid, I hate Faustian, want to bring the whole world into the hole of cathartic depression who want to go.
    My mind is very, very simple.

  20. His argument or counter-response was pretty mediocre now. Please, next time, try preparing something more palatable than just proto-metaphorical allusions.
    I'm in the right side, because I'm not in any side.

  21. In the documentary, West and East on cultural differences, showed that usual in the eastern nations people to think what the visit would welcome, in terms of food and home habits.
    In contrast, in the West, the visit is free to choose what they want or that is in range. This is interesting because it shows that the East Asian tend to be very agreeable with each other.

    My mother is so neurotically concerned about the opinion of others. On the other hand, I am or I became almost its exact opposite, though worry about being polite to others when deserve. My mother is verbally gifted and as a teacher, is bright and creative. But because of his concern to please others, but because it is consists of intellectual suffering for her, rejects (naturally) big-C. Your creativity is perfect to meet the system's wishes in a rich country and functional (and not this slave quarters). My creativity is to criticize him and if possible bring him down, especially if it is objectively unfair.

    The best ideas come when you least think. It is believed that learning is the philosopher's stone of knowledge capture, but there needs to internalize it, become attached to it as if it were a lover. There must be empathy. If not, it will consist of a kind of intellectual suffering. Almost everything is intuition, super cognitive effort, does not exist in my vocabulary and may not exist anywhere. All hard-working are just being themselves.

    To have divergent and radically different ideas, you not only them, but expose them and send everyone take in the ass, you have to be brave and sophisticatedly immoral. And we know that most East Asian do not fit this profile. Not even a good portion of Caucasians.

  22. Panda,
    prove to us that at least you is an exception to the rule. Prove to us that you are very creative and offer new ideas on the subject. You can be creative, to criticize the assumptions that are contrary to yours, and at the same time, suggest new hypotheses.

    I think the world is very unfair and that only in a completely equalized world, we can analyze intelligence empirically, because a number of environmental factors (although also express positive correlations with intelligence, such as the son of scientists wins Nobel prize), change the final result, and if we want to analyze the man and his intellect, pure and comprehensive way (I hope so), then we should eliminate the variable '' complexity of the environment ''. In this case, we would be dealing with cognitive potential, as to cope with the environment, we use more personality and ''she'' must be contextually adapted to the environment.

    Again, the cognitive tests measure part of the intellect within a static perspective. One has to measure it also within a potential perspective, the ability to use cognition intelligently, and also in terms of adaptation to the environment. In this way, we will be analyzing the man, towards the middle, but by steps, slowly. Man, to their environment. A major problem of this type of analysis is that anthropomorphized environments, just emulate what happens in nature, natural selection.

    Perhaps one that use your brain to adapt, it is precisely the high-functioning psychopath and the wise.

    1. LOL Santo,

      What "rule"?

      Which "exception"?

      Panda's "proofs? "criticize assumptions"? "suggest new hypothesis"?...

      Borrow a mirror, Santa Claus, as they've been written allover your face since Panda's 1st post. ROFL

    2. As expected...

      talk about creativity... but... is not a creative to understand and to accept that their kind people are not gods.

  23. "My mind is very, very simple."

    Thank god, for once you've convinced Panda to agree with you. :D

    BTW, by "river" Panda referred to the river of logic.

  24. "I repeat, the Chinese copied step by step the industrial revolution. Far from being creative, it is pure pragmatism."


    "China... copied step by step the industrial revolution"? ROFL. Panda would have deeply worried if they hadn't.

    Considering that is a popular cliché in the avg-90-IQ-internet, Panda would advise you think over this:

    ---Panda repeat, Santoculto copied his primary school Portugues teacher using fixed letters (instead of creative graffiti) to write his name, followed by copying the Chinese on how to wide his/their behind/s using toilet papar. How dare he do that? The act is far from being creative Panda would argue, it is pure pragmatism. LOL---

    The cliché of Creativity in Panda's view is actually:

    A. a rather primitive trait of the humans. Everyone has it. It is positively correlated with the general intelligence.

    B. a rather luxuary property of the humans, a bit like reproductive sperms. Humans generally only turn to creativity (creativity tends to be its best) under 2 circumstances ---

    ---i. in forced and/or desperate situations, and

    ---ii. for the purpose of pure indulgence, which by definition has much greater comfort/wealth as the pre-condition.

    (e.g the innovations that stimulated the Industrial Revolution were largely based on these 2 - desperate attempts to out-competing nearby opponent states to be able to survive; and relatively high per capita wealth at disposal.

    The Exprosives Prize, however, is largely based on the later - pure dick-swinging indulgence for reputation, supported by much higher per capita wealth, hence research funding, at disposal.

    Otherwise, people tend not to resort to creativity but pragmatism which requires only routine wisdom.

    It is because, like sperm, creativity is such a luxury property that consumes limited hence precious energy from the humans.

    Basically that's also why you don't find youself jerking off on a hourly basis for nothing, or you do? ROFL.

  25. Creativity is a raw primitive trait of the humans, nothing fancy or mystical about it.

    In comparisum, Pragmatism is a much more refined and advanced human trait because:

    A. it is much more cost-effective, hence energy efficient - critical in all stages of human development, and

    B. it is based on wisdom - a form of cumulated and crystallised knowledge.

  26. ''ROFL. Panda would have deeply worried if they hadn't.''

    Just nonsense of a child and insolent mind.

    The slight impression of being '' debating '' with a teenage troll.

    This is not refute my points, my friend.

    If you have nothing more to add to the debate ...

    His beloved China, is a tacky place and pork, which copies each error of the industrial revolution. Do not speak of creativity, if not at least have a bit of it to you, just shut up. You do not know what you're saying. From the first time I saw you in hbdsphere you do not change your strategy, is a dogmatic thinking, you're like a '' nationalist white '', the only difference is that it is not 'politically incorrect' 'speak well of their beloved China.

    ''Considering that is a popular cliché in the avg-90-IQ-internet, Panda would advise you think over this:

    ---Panda repeat, Santoculto copied his primary school Portugues teacher using fixed letters (instead of creative graffiti) to write his name, followed by copying the Chinese on how to wide his/their behind/s using toilet papar. How dare he do that? The act is far from being creative Panda would argue, it is pure pragmatism. LOL---''''

    Just a whinny of a stupid person with good cognition. On the other hand, intellectually, you are mediocre. I want rebuttals. I know you have not, why are preferring embarrassment here rather than show them. Everyone here has already reached the same conclusion.

    Even with a HUGE population, a huge intelligent fraction, the world's largest, in a country that is rising economically, and even with a large population of diaspora, Chinese on average are not '' giving the world '', geniuses on a large scale, as was mathematically expected.

    Despising the copy of Victorian England that the Chinese urban interior to consist in their economically open areas or in the diaspora, there is absolutely nothing that is preventing the Chinese from moving forward, especially in a world where the only one who could overshadow it, ie the poor fool '' white man ', is dying in his own stupidity.

    More in China itself still, the government is capturing '' smarter '', of course, according to Western psychometric parameters, to make them work for them. It will will work ??

    In the West, thanks to school '' standard confucius '' and the foolish belief in '' nurturism '' without ceilling, a large percentage of potential geniuses is likely to be being wasted.

  27. And you still want to teach me about creativity ??

    I'll just pretend I'm not seeing much arrogance in a person who has added little or nothing in hbdsphere.

    Well, you seem to know the concepts of wisdom, just do not know how to apply them in real life, as a good '' clever silly '' you are.

    For example, it is not wise to continue to reject all evidence that '' his people '', is not as innovative as the 'Ming Dynasty'. Of course many factors in addition to biological, were important to determine this change, but the most important factor will still be biology.

    Be humble and accept that '' his people '' are not gods, is the first to apply wisdom in real life.

    Another example of wisdom, is to deny this mediocre kind of argumentative approach but also for life, preferring to defend his people, even when the criticisms are true, and not start by itself. The vast majority of the wise, that is, they know what wisdom means and apply in their lives, are solitary and / or reject the heat from the crowds. No, there intelligent crowds.

  28. I am open, partly for cultural theory, it can not be possible that in a human ocean of 1.3 billion people who are not stupid, can not be at least 200 very bright individuals who can give '' great contributions' ' the humanity''. It may be possible that in a large population, these types do not exist ?? Yes, oddly enough it may be possible yes.
    Do you know why?? Because the percentage of creative geniuses large capacity among Caucasians, is already very low. Yes, the accumulated knowledge is important, but you need people who can have extremely advanced, extremely rare ideas that no one else had. You can have all the accumulated human knowledge and even get ahead in slow steps but a genius, reduce this time significantly. A large number of highly intelligent scholars, may take centuries to achieve develop a project, a genius does so overwhelmingly quick. The Western success across the eastern lethargy, 500 years ago to the present day, is mainly because of the spread of Western genius, for the industrial revolution, electricity, use of firearms, the social dynamism and cultural . (geniuses are always wise ?? absolutely not. That explains European colonialism).

    Therefore, as a wise good I am, I will never neglect the many environmental factors, cultural factors, see Japan. The relaxation of cultural norms can cause some people, who are more naturally divergent can see freer to invent (think you are not part of this group). But still, so far, we are not seeing here an explosion of Chinese creativity. Does sink when the US, China will begin to show the world your creative ingenuity ??

    We are seeing rather a lot of intelligence and remnants of some ancient wisdom, not all or even most of them, but many, especially the older ones.

    Canada is one of the freest countries in the world (except for white nationalists, of course).

    3 million Chinese-Americans.

    The places where most Chinese diaspora has flourished, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, are very similar to each other. They are very successful copies of American modern cities. But do not see, or recreational creativity or practical creativity. Only the Chinese being Chinese in other lands outside the mainland.

    The recreational creativity in the arts for example, thrive in safe environments. Practical creativity can flourish anywhere, it is the ACT to adapt, the act of being human. BIG-C is the act of innovating, because when repeating the same strategy several times, this has ceased to be creative. Creativity is the antithesis of routine.

    I want to stop cursing a person I do not even know, we let's stop being stupid and learn to debate one each other ???

    The problem is that you always take these debates in a very emotional way. No one here is saying that the Chinese are stupid, but you can not have everything. You want to have happen millions of cultural leftists importing violent immigrants to their country (although there are many good immigrants, of course) ??

    Where there are geniuses, there will be twice as lunatics. This is very bad.

  29. After I said several times that pragmatism is an essential feature of the Chinese, you appropriated this term to determine who is the '' most advanced human thought ''.

    Do you think that's right ??

    All non-human species are 'unconsciously' 'pragmatic, pragmatism is instinct. This is not advanced, only if it is for you. the genuinely human thought is called reflection, the amazing ability to doubt the brain itself and its conclusions.

    You complain about the attitudes of the Jews, but you're acting just like a Jew who says '' his people '' is the eternal victim or that is wonderful. Any difference ?? I do not see any.

    The pragmatic

    - Abort the child when the government ask (empathy ... nope)

    - Accept the upper orders, without criticizing,

    - It is corrupt, because in a place where money is the main source of '' material happiness '', it will use its practical cleverness to win money easily and effortlessly,

    - Pragmatic not see value in things, at work, in an effort to achieve something,

    - Pragmatic not see value in the past, only the present, he has little abstract thinking, because thinking in abstractions, is also thinking about space and time that is not living or will live. Respect for the past or the idealism for the future.

  30. Hey Santo,

    What kind of axe you're grinding?

    Why don't you do some preliminary readings on innovations in the current world before asking Panda to refute you, will you? LOL

    Panda doesn't know under which brick people like you pull out that "innovative", or "intellectual curiosity genes", black magic, making wild accussation one after another, as if you were all coming from Mars last month. ROFL

    Get a grip!

    The UN has long had a worldwide measurement of "innovative", called "WIPO", oke?

    The East Asia 3 ( China, Japan and Korea) are in the world's top 5 ranking on overall patent filings.

    On per capita basis, probably Taiwan (aka Han Chinese) takes the cake as the world's leading innovator:

    http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_941_2014.pdf (WIPO 2014 Worldwide Innovations Yearbook)






    You gonna pay Panda to google up these easy homework for you, right?

  31. You're blind or deaf??

    ''Panda'' seems unable to stop to be histerical in their argumentations.

    I have spoken before. I'll just repeat what I have said.

    '' Westerners '', with lower fertility rates, at the end of the demographic transition, the edge of opportunistic invasions, with a parasite on their heads, yet still giving great contributions.

    The competition is in favor of '' Easternes '' and even then, the '' Westerners '' continue giving greater contributions. Do not forget, dear Panda, nations such as Denmark and Sweden.

    Panda can do simple accounts ??

    Denmark has only 5 million inhabitants, Sweden has only 8 million inhabitants. I will not repeat the number of inhabitants of China .... and yet they are among the countries with more patents.


  32. Santoculto, I keep misreading your name as "Santoculo."

  33. "Conversely, Northeast Asians are exceptional students, but they make up only 8–9% of university professors in 2011 (National Center for Educational Statistics) and less than 5% of Nobel laureates."

    Given that east asians make up just about 2% of the US population, that is a strong over-representation in university positions, and nobel prizes as well. Most east asian US nobelists are chinese too (and nearly all chinese nobelists are american), and given how koreans have yet to win a single nobel, chinese are highly over-represented in those regards, despite getting a rap in these circles as being the least creative asians.

  34. This year's STEM Nobels so far would seem to be a warning to anyone attempting to investigate this matter using Nobels while ignoring the issue of economic development & the huge Nobel time-lags: not 1 but 3 Japanese & Chinese Nobelists! (Takaaki Kajita, Satoshi Ōmura, & Youyou Tu; the last of which is for a compound purified in *1972* - or 43 years ago). And the Chemistry Nobel isn't even out yet...

  35. Great Content. I appreciate getting this reliable information from you.
    Thanks for sharing this great content. I love reading your posts. They are inspiring. I have some relevant information you can review below
    order BrainPlus IQ
    BrainPlus IQ ingredients

  36. While an undergrad I noticed that Asians were much smarter than I was, for example they could read something once and memorize it. But they still need me in their group for projects, I didn't find them to be very imaginative, when building circuits they didn't think outside the box, they generally repeated textbook examples. On the other end of the spectrum I find Africans to be very imaginative and creative in their thinking, so much so that a lot of it has no basis in reality, absurd conspiricizing.
    But you are basing this on Nobel prizes. It could just be that Jewish journalists find it novel to award Nobel prizes to other jews. Bob Dylan sucks. Einstein is the most written about genius. Jeremy Lin isn't a relatively very good basketball player.