Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior

so you've highlighted a difference. The IQ tests administered to American and European people, in a certain language, reveal different races to have different average (mean/median/mode?) IQs. Does that mean that every Asian has a higher IQ?

is it a superiority?

I've never found unicorns in my sock drawer by using a metal detector. Does that mean there are none, or that my test is flawed, or that I'm looking for the wrong thing?

If there were no IQ test, would Asians still be superior?

I was born in India, but grew up here in the US. My folks demanded nothing but perfection.
However, there was one fundamental difference. My folks allowed me to choose what I wanted to do and what I wanted to be in life. But whatever choices I made, I had to be the best at it! Once again, no exceptions!
I am now employed in a field that I dreamed about as a child. It was because of their backing, encouragement and lessons learned as a child that I am successful today. I will forever be grateful for all they did for me.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

so you've highlighted a difference. The IQ tests administered to American and European people, in a certain language, reveal different races to have different average (mean/median/mode?) IQs. Does that mean that every Asian has a higher IQ?

is it a superiority?

I've never found unicorns in my sock drawer by using a metal detector. Does that mean there are none, or that my test is flawed, or that I'm looking for the wrong thing?

If there were no IQ test, would Asians still be superior?

You asked for reading material on the subject that races are different. Now your turn to show scientific evidence that races are exactly the same.
You're stretching, distorting, spinning and putting words in my posts like there's no tomorrow. Again, reading comprehension is a requirement in a discussion board that uses written media.
Not only me, but nobody in this thread, has made any of the claims above. It's called a straw man argument.

And yes, there are no unicorns.

Originally Posted by Master Po

You asked for reading material on the subject that races are different. Now your turn to show scientific evidence that races are exactly the same.
You're stretching, distorting, spinning and putting words in my posts like there's no tomorrow. Again, reading comprehension is a requirement in a discussion board that uses written media.
Not only me, but nobody in this thread, has made any of the claims above. It's called a straw man argument.

And yes, there are no unicorns.

Po,
The problem is that you are trying to use IQ (and other standardized tests) as a measure of intelligence. What Nova is pointing out is several factors and they show that IQ tests Binet and Standford-Binet do not actually measure the complexity of intelligence.

First look at the origin of the "IQ test" Binet. At the turn of the 20th century Binet looked at a way to figure out if teaching mentally retarded children was worth it for the french govt. the Binet test was developed to do this.
So to say that chinese have a genetic advantage in IQ is great. Congrats, you have a genetic advantage over mentally retarded french kids.

Now, we also then have to look at what is known as the Flynn effect. The substantial increase in average scores on intelligence tests over time. Do you honestly think that due to genetic changes in the the combination of all races tested that intelligence has increased 20% in less than 80 years? Do you honestly think that genetic variation and/or mutation has occurred this quickly?
Not only that but:
"When large samples of Spanish children were assessed with a 30-year gap. Comparison of the IQ distributions indicated that
1. the mean IQ-scores on the test had increased by 9.7 points (the Flynn effect),
2. the gains were concentrated in the lower half of the distribution and negligible in the top half, and
3. the gains gradually decreased as the IQ of the individuals increased."

This also means that it is the bottom that is coming up not that intelligence itself as a whole is going up.

Now, look at Charles Spearman and g for "general intelligence factor." Now Spearman's "g" is most often seen in tests involving abstract reasoning, however it can also be seen as a statistical artifact.

The reality is there is no proof.

Let me pose a question to you. If there were some genetic superiority in IQ tests for asians and chinese in particular. Why hasn't the chinese govt been out testing every person they can find to prove this? If this really were true, don't you think the chinese govt would be doing everything it could to show the world they are smarter than everybody else?

I've never said that all the races are identical. It's pretty obvious from a quick glance that they're not. Facial structures, average height, hair type, etc, can all be linked and differentiated between racial groups.

The implication you're making, however, is that one race is inherently and genetically superior to others. Which, as you pointed out, is a scientifically sound as blood letting and humor balancing.

I've never said that all the races are identical. It's pretty obvious from a quick glance that they're not. Facial structures, average height, hair type, etc, can all be linked and differentiated between racial groups.

The implication you're making, however, is that one race is inherently and genetically superior to others. Which, as you pointed out, is a scientifically sound as blood letting and humor balancing.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

I've never said that all the races are identical. It's pretty obvious from a quick glance that they're not. Facial structures, average height, hair type, etc, can all be linked and differentiated between racial groups.

The implication you're making, however, is that one race is inherently and genetically superior to others. Which, as you pointed out, is a scientifically sound as blood letting and humor balancing.

One factor that has not been mentioned and is rarely brought up is the population group of those being tested.

In Germany, high school students go into one of two tracks. One is vocational and the other is academic, which orients the kids towards college.

You have to test well to be in the academic high schools, it is not necessarily a choice.

So. If the academically oriented high school students are the ones that are tested and not the ones in vocational school, there could be a test bias that does not exist in schools where all students are grouped together.

I think that IQ results are interesting, but I don't think that you can necessarily compare the test results 1 to 1 because the school environments are so much different.

Furthermore, test results and IQ mean nothing if you don't apply what you have learned. Some people are late bloomers anyhow. And high test results do not replace personal motivation, a drive for excellence and a willingness to take risks.

damn, i just read this article. uh, this woman's kids are still in high school. that's a little hasty to be declaring your own parenting to be a success, isn't it? let's revisit this family once all the kids are in their 20's and see how many of them are still talking to their mother.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

I've never said that all the races are identical. It's pretty obvious from a quick glance that they're not. Facial structures, average height, hair type, etc, can all be linked and differentiated between racial groups.

The implication you're making, however, is that one race is inherently and genetically superior to others. Which, as you pointed out, is a scientifically sound as blood letting and humor balancing.

You certainly did. You even called me racist for mentioning differences in races.
All I said was that races are different.
Acknowledging first, and then identifying those differences, one can better exploit one's strengths.
If that's racism, so be it. There's nothing inherently bad about the word racism. The word has been demonized by the paranoid political-correctness police based on past actions.
Instituting social policies that exclude an entire group of people based on their race = BAD.
Recognizing strengths due to race and making social policies that encourage groups of people to further develop their own strengths and use them = GOOD.
The alternative is a society where everyone is treated equal, but at the lowest common denominator level.

Show me where I made statements that one race is superior to other.

Originally Posted by carsos

damn, i just read this article. uh, this woman's kids are still in high school. that's a little hasty to be declaring your own parenting to be a success, isn't it? let's revisit this family once all the kids are in their 20's and see how many of them are still talking to their mother.

Exactly, wait until they hit college and learn what a "one night stand" is lol.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

Po,
The problem is that you are trying to use IQ (and other standardized tests) as a measure of intelligence.

I did no such thing. I cited an article called Race and Intelligence, and they use IQ to measure intelligence.
I could have just as easily cited many other articles, such as Race and Wealth, Race and Strength, etc. The point was to show Nova that there is scientifically measurable differences between races, and those are inheritable (meaning genetic, not just environmental). You, yourself cited some piece about race and genitalia, did you not?
The reason I chose the Race and Intelligence article is because there is a definite correlation between IQ and academic achievement. That's in the article. Read it.
One thing I did say, and may have spurred this whole (misinformed) debate is that I do agree Asians perform better in academics. That article goes directly to that.
Nowhere did I say that Asians are superior as a race.

You're falling in the straw man trap that Nova laid out.

Originally Posted by Master Po

I did no such thing. I cited an article called Race and Intelligence, and they use IQ to measure intelligence.
I could have just as easily cited many other articles, such as Race and Wealth, Race and Strength, etc. The point was to show Nova that there is scientifically measurable differences between races, and those are inheritable (meaning genetic, not just environmental). You, yourself cited some piece about race and genitalia, did you not?
The reason I chose the Race and Intelligence article is because there is a definite correlation between IQ and academic achievement. That's in the article. Read it.
One thing I did say, and may have spurred this whole (misinformed) debate is that I do agree Asians perform better in academics. That article goes directly to that.
Nowhere did I say that Asians are superior as a race.

You're falling in the straw man trap that Nova laid out.

Hardly. You are failing to grasp simple concepts (and sarcasm).

The article you cited failed to acknowledge the Flynn effect & that standardized tests (IQ or school testing) more likely as not, tell us nothing about how smart/intelligent/bright a person is. So to say "Asians perform better in academics" is a airman argument. It has no relevance to anything, as is demonstrated by the Flynn effect.

And you did say in the context of chinese persons having higher college acceptance rates.

Originally Posted by Master Po

It's definitely in the genes and in parenting.

So, yes, you did say Asians are a superior race, even if only in that context.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

Hardly. You are failing to grasp simple concepts (and sarcasm).

The article you cited failed to acknowledge the Flynn effect & that standardized tests (IQ or school testing) more likely as not, tell us nothing about how smart/intelligent/bright a person is. So to say "Asians perform better in academics" is a airman argument. It has no relevance to anything, as is demonstrated by the Flynn effect.

And you did say in the context of chinese persons having higher college acceptance rates.

So, yes, you did say Asians are a superior race, even if only in that context.

Go argue with the Wikipedia authors. They have a strong discussion group going on.

Despite your reservations to IQ as a valid metric or not the fact remains that Asians do perform better in academics. And yes, that's partly in the genes and partly due to parenting (focus on academics).
That's very easily verified by looking at admission rates in the TOP TIER colleges (not UC Irvine).

That has nothing to do with one race being superior to another.
I also said that blacks perform better in sports. Also very easily verifyable.
So, which race is superior, Asians or Blacks? You're just trolling.

Originally Posted by hayabusa55

Some of our parents and grandparents had to grow up in the toughest of conditions and had to deal with life's challenges in much different ways than we do now. That doesn't mean that I need to send my kids to war at 13 to get them to become good people like my grandfather.

This lady is nuts. I sincerely doubt her happiness and satisfaction in life with anything, including herself and her children. For one to be so strict and demanding and focused on a particular goal is not a temporary condition, alleviated once the goal is attained.

There are Western parents like this. They're the obsessive types who push their children into sports and instruments they themselves wanted to excel at. The ones who live through their children.

And the children? Sure, they know how to play violin really well. Sure, they're good at school. What about their social skills? Happiness? Their future relationships and parental skills?

What many people fail to realize is that life's success is not measured by money or medals or even skill. There are plenty of activities that contribute to none of the above and yet they're very important to the happiness and health of a person.

Yup. So true. I wonder what the suicide rates are across races?

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

so you've highlighted a difference. The IQ tests administered to American and European people, in a certain language, reveal different races to have different average (mean/median/mode?) IQs. Does that mean that every Asian has a higher IQ?

is it a superiority?

I've never found unicorns in my sock drawer by using a metal detector. Does that mean there are none, or that my test is flawed, or that I'm looking for the wrong thing?

If there were no IQ test, would Asians still be superior?

I know where I'm superior to Asians. And numbers on a page will never convince me someone is smarter than me. IQ tests and conventional forms of intelligence testing is just that; conventional. It appears the people that excel end up being quite unconventional.

Originally Posted by Master Po

Go argue with the Wikipedia authors. They have a strong discussion group going on.

Despite your reservations to IQ as a valid metric or not the fact remains that Asians do perform better in academics. And yes, that's partly in the genes and partly due to parenting (focus on academics).

Show me the genome!
The fact that you can't makes it quite clear you never attended a TOP TIER university.

Originally Posted by Master Po

My arguments were not in favor of Chinese Parenting techniques. My arguments had to do with one race being superior than another IN A PARTICULAR AREA of endeavor.

you're claiming that one race is superior to another.

creating "social policies" that "help one group exploit their strengths" is an extremely slippery slope to social eugenic practices.

And again, it's common knowledge that there are differences between races. There's nothing wrong with saying that. It's scientifically demonstrable. We identify race from bone structure.

Again, though, your argument is that one race is inherently superior to another. And that we need to create "social programs" to allow them to better exploit that. In those two arguments, you are dangerously wrong. If one race of the human species is inherently and genetically superior to others, wouldn't it be in the best interests of the human species that we exploit that as a whole and breed for those most desirable qualites? And breed out the less desirable ones? If there is a genetically inherent "flaw" in a person, wouldn't it be in our best interests as a species to not allow them to reproduce? Or at least isolate their reproduction to others that are "flawed"? We wouldn't want to hurt the positive genes flowing through non-flawed members of the species, right? If the argument is that each race is superior to others IN CERTAIN AREAS, then shouldn't we be trying to cross-breed races for the maximum positive? We could have the inherent strength of a black, the inherent intelligence of an asian, the inherent leadership skill of a nordic. We'll have to breed some central american industrialism in there, though, to counter-act the inherent lazyness of the black genes. Then we can create some kind of "master race" that can lead us into a new Golden Age of Humanity.

Sounds great, right?

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

you're claiming that one race is superior to another.

Fock. I've seen people yank a text out of context to spin it.
But this is the first time I see a spin with the entire context being in the quote.
Good news, we've diagnosed the source of your reading comprehension issue: you stop reading the minute you find what you want to read.
So the NBA and the NFL chose to select all black players strictly because they look prettier all matched up on a TV screen?

I guess a little perspective is in order.
Here here... I can blast Asians as well. This is one area whites (chicks) are superior, I must admit.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

creating "social policies" that "help one group exploit their strengths" is an extremely slippery slope to social eugenic practices.

And again, it's common knowledge that there are differences between races. There's nothing wrong with saying that. It's scientifically demonstrable. We identify race from bone structure.

Again, though, your argument is that one race is inherently superior to another. And that we need to create "social programs" to allow them to better exploit that. In those two arguments, you are dangerously wrong. If one race of the human species is inherently and genetically superior to others, wouldn't it be in the best interests of the human species that we exploit that as a whole and breed for those most desirable qualites? And breed out the less desirable ones? If there is a genetically inherent "flaw" in a person, wouldn't it be in our best interests as a species to not allow them to reproduce? Or at least isolate their reproduction to others that are "flawed"? We wouldn't want to hurt the positive genes flowing through non-flawed members of the species, right? If the argument is that each race is superior to others IN CERTAIN AREAS, then shouldn't we be trying to cross-breed races for the maximum positive? We could have the inherent strength of a black, the inherent intelligence of an asian, the inherent leadership skill of a nordic. We'll have to breed some central american industrialism in there, though, to counter-act the inherent lazyness of the black genes. Then we can create some kind of "master race" that can lead us into a new Golden Age of Humanity.

Sounds great, right?

I didn't say we NEED to create anything.
But if we were, you wouldn't call it racism.
Or if you were to call it racism, it'd be the "good" type.
Affirmative Action anyone? Isn't that racism?

Point being (since you can't get it): racism isn't a bad word. It depends on what you're doing.

Originally Posted by Master Po

(Any quoted text material has been removed to reduce the potential to hurt Po's feelings on being called out for statements he actually has made.)

Show me the genome!