Success of Asian students: culture or genes?

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)?

Comments

[John Barth]

Very interesting! I've spent lots of time in Asian cultures and thought a lot about certain pretty distinctive features of Asian culture and have wondered if perhaps there is not at least some genetic basis for all this. It really doesn't make sense otherwise. The interaction between culture and genes can be reciprocal as well. But it is merely a question of distribution of a particular gene - even if most Asians, say, are acquiescent, it does not mean all are. There are no doubt many Asians who possess, genetically, a more "Western" personality profile. They may form a minority amongst Asians, but they surely exist in numbers. Certain aspects of Asian culture seem puzzling to me without a genetic basis - for instance, anyone who has been to Asia is struck by the introversion and shyness of the people, which in extreme but not at all rare cases verges on fear of foreigners (actual fear, not dislike), and anyone who knows Asian history knows that nearly all Asian societies at one point or another in their history closed their door to outsiders (even other Asians) and were "Hermit Kingdoms" of one form or another. Now of course ALL human societies have xenophobic tendencies which wax and wane but no human society seems to have this tendency developed to quite such a degree, so consistently throughout their history. Contrast cosmopolitan ancient Rome, etc, etc. Is there a genetic basis for this? Who knows? It seems likely to me that the genes for a kind of introverted timidity might be more widespread amongst the Asian population than amongst the Western one. In the West, moreover, xenophobia took the form of hatred and violence towards foreigners (obviously the Asian approach is more attractive), and not fear and timidity. So even though xenophobia is common to all human societies, perhaps the form it takes is genetically modified? Take take the historical lack of Asian interest in the world outside their borders, lack of curiosity, the fact that even today Asians are rarely trailblazers or innovators or top experts even though so well represented at the top universities, etc, etc, and a particular picture begins to emerge of a kind of introverted timidity and calm quiescence . The question is complex and the information incomplete at this time, and it is very interesting! But who knows what the answere are, anywyas?

[Luka]

I'm an international student and I've found that I have learned most of the school materials (lower division) in high school, especially the science and math--our high school math was fairly equivalent (probably a lil less detailed) to Calculus III in my current college. I may look smart to my American friends but really I don't think I am because it's just simply a repetition of what I learned or been exposed to some extent. I've asked most of my Asian international friends and they said they felt the same.

The only thing we were bad at when we just arrived was writing papers, due to the lack of English proficiency. Social sciences, philosophy and English classes can be hard for me. In my high school, I didn't even have psychology and philosophy courses, and only those who majored in social sciences would have the chance to take anthropology. There were sociology, business and accounting for both majors (natural and social sciences) though.

I don't think it's the gene; I think it's more because of the culture, including the educational system and people's expectation. I did fairly bad in biology (50 out of 100) in high school, but in the US I have scored the top in my biology class and have decided to major in it. For my high math, just FYI, I remember I needed to memorize all the trigonometric identities, including the derivations/integrations for calculus. In here, we use handouts during the test. For chemistry, we need to memorize the atomic names, groups (like atoms belonging to halogen are...), and no chart is given during the test. Atomic number is given, but all units and formulae have to be memorized. Except for accounting exams, no calculator may be used in the test. Doing math homework with a calculator is discouraged.

Family teachings, such as prioritizing hard work, may also play a role in our "smartness", but I think it really is the fact that we, international Asians, had been exposed to the materials (and trained very hard) in fairly young age. At the end, the school here is just repetition. I'm flattered that the Asians "genes" are highly thought of by some people. But honestly, I think we're merely overrated for our "smartness".

[the Duke of Exeter's daughter]

Learnt the OED: all 10 volumes?

[Elliott]

Have you ever even met an Asian? So called studies like the ones you've cited turn up with a million different results, and use the ones that whoever is interpreting the data would like to see. Not all Asians rely on rote memorisation, not all Asians are closed- minded (though if that were the case, you may as well be Asian yourself), and some of us rather enjoy the back- and- forth Socratic method that we're supposed to criticise so harshly.
And fear is taught. Just like any other conditioned response. Ask Pavlov.

The desire (or motivation) to be "honorable" and respect authority could be innately stronger in Chinese than in other people
Just because we respect authority does not mean that we don't go against it.

The ability to "defer gratification" (and spend long hours in lonely labs) could be greater as well
No, we're just really patient like that. And quite obviously, you've never worked in a lab before, have you? It's anything but lonely... Oh, and of course, Americans would never dream of spending such hours in the lab when they could go grab a drink with their buddies! How scandalous of me to assume that!

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
Fear can be taught. As with any other conditioned response, fear can be a production of training. Ask Pavlov.

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
I know a number of American couples who live apart, working in separate cities. The need for daily intimacy could be less intense in Americans.

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.
How would it be innate? It's taught by parents who were taught the same and raised under the same philosophical umbrella. Take an Asian baby and put them in a traditional American household at birth. Take an American baby and put them in a traditional Asian household at birth. Chances are that you're going to wind up with a very docile Caucasian and a very outgoing Asian.

[Dan P]

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!

It's fairly standard for high level Scrabble players to learn the entire dictionary. If you're a British scrabble player then you learn two dictionaries so that you can compete against Americans as well as other Brits.

[Craig]

Also.....
Americans are now a mutt culture, crosses from all known groups. As such any generalizations of other groups will be diluted over time to end up dispersed until linked back in possible F2 backcrosses which will temporarily manfifest a few of these traits. Like Asian eye shape crossed to European eye shape, (intermediate results)then back to Asian or European. (back to asian or European depending on the backcross)Also pigment of hair, skin, etc. These would be the simple to observe traits.
First cross is intermediate, F2 fixes the type by statistically matching alleles to lean one way or the other by crossing back to one type or the other.
Mendel is right on this one.

[Craig]

LOL! Is racism innate? If so, you got it from your parents I suppose.

1. Respect of authority. See Tiananmen square.
2. Fear can be taught. See Tiananmen square again. Ask anyone who was a teen in the 70's and then discovered aids. Or herpes. I swear I wasn't fearful of "free sex" before aids. Totally learned and taught.
3. Why fear standing out in a crowd of 3 billion people?
4. Less intimacy? See population of China. How many Chinese do you know as a sample? Compare it to the population of China which clearly indicates a high degree of some kind of "intimacy".
5. Good thing you still are looking for proof.

It is likely such a large population has various different traits, but the geographic area and size of the population precludes gross generalizations, esp. with the influx of *known* PROVEN outside genetic influences. See genetic studies of the "peopling" of earth through Africa, then Asia. Don't forget to add Italians and populations with genes for red hair either directly from Scandanavia or through the British Isles. These generalizations would need to apply to all Asian cultures, not just Chinese. Also Aleuts, Native Americans.

If we are going to teach others of genetic predispositions we must be careful to stick to facts, not silly general assumptions that border on racism. Racism is taught, like fear, not innate. There is no racism gene or genes unless you count lack of intellect or perhaps the predisposition to shoot from the hip.