Some commentators are bemoaning the fact that 46% of students at the University of California, Berkeley, are now Asian. But I think it's great. It proves that Americans are so certain in our principles, that we allow meritocracy to flourish, whatever the outcome. If Asians have the highest scores, of course they should be the ones who are accepted. If this leads to racial imbalances at the university level, so be it.
Are Asians innately smarter that other people? I'm not so sure. (Perhaps the new Asian Genome Study will tell us!) In any case, I think the Western educational style of "thinking for yourself" puts a burden on many people, and slows us down at first, especially in our ability to identify patterns.
Some Chinese students I know appreciated the fact that in China they were told what classes to take, and what to study, so they didn't need to worry or question anything. They just studied what was put in front of them. The Asian style is often one of rote memorization, accepting what you are told (whether it makes sense or not), and doing deeper analysis later.
Still, I believe there will be some short-term issues with the influx of Asians at American universities. According to Stanford professor Hazel R. Markus (in a recent NYT article):
[S]tudies have found that Asian students do approach academics differently. Whether educated in the United States or abroad, she says, they see professors as authority figures to be listened to, not challenged in the back-and-forth Socratic tradition. “You hear some teachers say that the Asian kids get great grades but just sit there and don’t participate,” she says. “Talking and thinking are not the same thing. Being a student to some Asians means that it’s not your place to question, and that flapping your gums all day is not the best thing.”
One study ... looked at Asian-American students in lab courses, and found they did better solving problems alone and without conversations with other students. “This can make for some big problems,” [says Markus], like misunderstandings between classmates. “But people are afraid to talk about these differences."
For these reasons, I don't believe Daniel Golden when he says Asians have become the “new Jews" (in other words, the new academic superstars). Jews have a culture and tradition of debate, law, and analysis. Asians don't.
This is rather alarming, because the American model is based on abstract principles and openness (which many Asians I know think are hopelessly naive):
- A free (and adversarial) press to investigate corruption
- Democracy (to replace corrupt leaders in a timely manner)
- Individual rights and moral equality
- Rule of law, not rule of man
- Openness and transparency in government and business
- Creativity based on individual opinion
- Dynamic capitalism, where wealth is created by new ideas and "creative destruction", not copies of old ideas
Still, as with any immigrant community, we always see difficulties at first. Once immigrants become more assimilated, they nearly always transform the culture, and leave it better than it was before. So, I say, welcome to the Asian invasion, and please bring your genes!
Anyway, back to genetics. In my opinion, every selection activity (whether of students, or of leaders in a corporation) is always a form of genetic selection. You can't have talent without genes, because talent emanates from motivation and desire, which is always innate. And a recent scientific publication reports that 25% of genes studied differ in their level of activity between Europeans and Asians.
Are Asian students innately different from Western students, or are they molded by their Confucian culture, which teaches deference toward elders, consensus-building, and rote learning? In my experience, even American Born Chinese (ABCs) have a greater respect for authority than non-Asians, and a more calm disposition, with a greater willingness to defer gratification and work hard. Confucianism may reflect the genetic character of the people, instead of vice versa. Still, native-born and American-born Chinese don't tend to hang out together, since the native-born Chinese find ABCs "too American" and noisy.
I think it's worthwhile looking at the representive aspects of Asian culture, and try to determine whether these could be genetic. According the NYT article:
“In Asian families, the No. 1 job of a child is to be a student. Being educated — that’s the most honorable thing you can do”
“The bottom line message from the family is the same: work hard, defer gratification, share sacrifice and focus on the big goal.”
Students are happy at Berkeley because “you really feel like you don’t stand out”
So what innate motivations are at work here, that separate Asians and other groups? Let’s deconstruct this a bit (with the caveat that this is merely speculation for further research):
The desire (or motivation) to be "honorable" and respect authority could be innately stronger in Chinese than in other people
The ability to "defer gratification" (and spend long hours in lonely labs) could be greater as well
Sensitivity to "social shame" is always relative, but Chinese could be innately more reserved on average. Fear of "standing out" is clearly innate, since you can't teach a fear
I know a number of Chinese couples who live apart, working in separate cities. The need for daily intimacy could be less intense in Chinese
Deference to authority is also innate, since how would you teach it? It has to feel right. It is amplified by the Confucian culture, but only because it resonates with people’s innate inclinations.
It's possible that Chinese have brains that are more adept at memorizing and pattern recognition, but I have no proof of that. I do remember a story about a guy from Thailand (not Chinese) who was an expert Scrabble player, because he memorized the entire English dictionary!
So my conclusion is: Asians probably have some different innate temperaments (on average) from other groups in America. And that's fine. The culture of Confucianism will still take a few generations to die out (which is a good thing, because it's incompatible with American values). But that's simply the normal process of assimilation. Would you rather live in a culture where everyone is supersmart (because there are no fixed rules, and knowing the context is all-important), or less smart (but where the rules are well known to all)?
Because not everyone is motivated by things that lead to "success" in the modern information age, we see a fundamental genetic inequality in society. However, even if it were possible to create drugs to remedy the problem, the FDA would never approve them, since its mandate is to focus on diseases, not human enhancement. Still, how many people take Viagra for a disease/condition (erectile dysfunction), and how many take it for enhancement?
