Looking beyond IQ and crime

by Frank Jamger

THE MOST FREQUENTLY cited data on race differences are IQ and crime rates, of which we have clear empirical measures. East Asians usually rank higher than Whites on these two stats, though strangely enough people aren’t lining up to move to east Asia. Intelligence and character extend well beyond these two stats, and we ought to look further into them. This essay examines deeper racial differences, particular the ones that distinguish Whites and Chinese, that make Europe a more appealing destination than east Asia, and that have enabled Whites to surpass China on historical measures.

Outline:

The purpose of this essay; my interest in the nature of ideas; a word on the import of trust; two key differences between Whites and Chinese.

I. The evolutionary basis of White-Chinese differences in trust and explorativity: rural versus urban agricultural environments.

II. The higher trust and compassion of Whites engenders greater morality and freedom.

Introduction: The nature of morality.

II-1. Chinese are more apprehensive and timid; Whites are more outgoing and aggressive.

II-2. Whites’ greater trust and honor enables freer communication and transactions; while cooperation among Chinese is problematic.

II-3. Compassion for the distressed is greater among Whites than Chinese.

II-4. Communication is more open and honest among Whites than Chinese.

II-5. Whites have greater moral drive than Chinese, in general.

A. Whites have greater moral drive, based on greater trust and empathy and lower outgroup discrimination.

B. Whites behave more morally than Chinese, in every respect.

C. Cultural norms of morality are based on genotypes.

II-6. Crime, abuse, and war: Whites are more aggressive, Chinese are more deceptive.

A. Whites commit more crimes of aggression; Chinese commit more crimes of deception.

B. Much exploitation and abuse by Chinese is not regarded as crime.

C. Whites fight more wars; Chinese have more rebellions.

D. Competition is the law of nature.

II-7. White families are voluntary unions; Chinese families are communist.

A. Chinese families are highly solidary because Chinese society is insecure; White families are freer.

B. Chinese families are tightly disciplined.

C. Chinese families have collective responsibilities.

II-8. White governments are representative cooperations; Chinese governments are despotisms.

Introduction.

A. White citizens are more independent.

B. Chinese rulers are more despotic.

C. Whites have had more power-sharing institutions; China has been autocratic.

D. Communist China is autocratic, just as were imperial regimes.

E. White governors are generally honorable; Chinese governors are generally corrupt.

F. Whites’ representative governments are stronger and more effective than China’s despotic regimes.

III-IV. Introduction: Whites are more explorative and creative than Chinese, while Chinese have higher memory-based intelligence.

A. Superior White explorativity and creativity; Superior Chinese memory and skill.

B. Whites have more discrete and abstract perception; Chinese have more concrete and detailed perception.

C. Creative/analytic and memory-based intelligence are broadly correlated, despite being inversely related at high levels.

III. The nature of intelligence, explorativity, and creativity.

III-1. The nature of memory-based intelligence.

A. Applications of memory-based intelligence.

B. Keen memory facilitates calculation, as well as recognition.

C. Keen memory facilitates manual skills, as well as mental ones.

III-2. The nature of creative/analytic intelligence.

A. Idea generation is based on explorativity and generation of new knowledge.

B. Idea generation requires abstract perception, in order to match knowledge with methods to obtain goals.

C. Matches are made of effects, as well as objects/actions; principles thereof being barely definite.

D. A creative mind considers a broad range of potential outcomes, as well as courses of action.

E. A creative mind wonders why when anomalous outcomes occur, and thereby refines principles.

F. A creative mind argues and composes similarly as it generates ideas and scrutinizes predictions.

III-3. Summary and comparison of memory-based and creative/analytic intelligence types.

A. Memory-based intelligence.

B. Creative/analytic Intelligence.

III-4. Intelligence tests and visuo-spatial ability.

A. Intelligence tests, including visuo-spatial tasks, measure memory-based intelligence, not creativity.

B. Explanation of the male-female visuo-spatial ability gap.

C. The difference between use of abstract principles to calculate, and abstract formulation and perception of principles to generate ideas.

IV. Evidence of intelligence types in Whites and Chinese.

Introduction.

IV-1. Exploration and recreation.

A. Whites are more explorative and interested in scientific discovery than are Chinese.

B. Whites are more active and recreational than Chinese, who are more task-focused.

IV-2. Storytelling, art, and fantasy.

A. Whites are more imaginative in literature and the arts.

B. Whites are more technologically imaginative.

IV-3. Tests of perception, categorization, and reasoning.

A. Tests indicate that Whites perceive more abstractly than Chinese.

B. Whites perceive objects more discretely and recognize them better in novel contexts; Chinese perceive scenes more concretely and memorize background details better.

C. Whites more actively focus upon objects and consider their properties.

D. Whites more associate objects according to their effects/function than their context.

E. Whites apply principles more robustly, even when implausible, thus considering more potentialities.

F. Whites consider and resolve contradictions more robustly.

IV-4. Language: Analytic clarity versus ornate form.

A. White language is more analytic and abstract; Chinese is more pictographic and concrete.

B. Chinese are more concerned with writing’s form and context.

C. Chinese language and writing is more ambiguous.

IV-5. Expository and scientific writing.

A. Whites axiomatized principles into degrees of abstraction, while Chinese made superficial correlations.

B. Whites scrutinize and debate principles and assertions more robustly than do Chinese.

IV-6. Religion and superstition.

A. Chinese are more susceptible to superstitious claims, because they are less conscious of contradictions with natural principles.

B. Judeo-Christianity is a relatively plausible religion that generally accepts natural laws.

C. Chinese religions and superstitions are more extensive and difficult to swallow.

D. Superstition deeply permeates Chinese people’s everyday activities.

E. Superstition even pervades Chinese medicine.

F. Chinese take superstitious luck far more seriously than do Whites.

IV-7. Gambling and carelessness.

A. Chinese gambling and superstition are intertwined.

B. Chinese are more reckless gamblers than Whites.

C. Chinese are more careless generally than Whites.

IV-8. Proficiency in memory and skill, and Chinese underachievement.

A. Chinese are more skilled than Whites at all tasks not requiring creativity or power athletics.

B. Explanation of the moderate Chinese performance on verbal tests: a need for creative interpretation of writing.

C. Chinese excellence in math and science is due to visuo-spatial ability, not creativity.

D. The Chinese ability set is comparable to that of autistic savants.

E. Chinese underachieve during careers, likely due to inferior creativity and judgement.

V. Whites have been more innovative than Chinese in all fields.

Introduction: Overview of Europe’s ascension.

V-1. Due to its greater agricultural challenges, Europe did not urbanize until about 1000AD, allowing China a technological lead.

A. The real question of comparative history: How did China get a lead on Europe? The answer: agricultural advantage.

B. The oldest civilizations of the world are all based on floodplains, the ideal environments for agriculture.

C. China’s large agricultural advantages over Europe.

D. China was well urbanized by about 1000BC.

E. Urbanization is a boon to technological progress.

F. The classical Greco-Roman world surpassed China despite being only a periphery of Europe, dependent on grain imports from Africa.

G. After the founding population of the Roman Empire intermixed into oblivion, it could not be held together.

H. Mainland Europe, barely changed by the Roman Empire, gradually developed its agricultural technology.

I. Europe urbanized at about 1000AD.

V-2. Europe’s technological innovation has been far superior to China’s.

A. China, which had connections with the old western world, achieved many early, basic inventions.

B. Much of China’s best creative work was done in its ancient past, which indicates subsequent genetic change toward lower creativity.

C. Europe developed rapidly, surpassing China’s general technological level by 1500.

D. The bases of Whites’ technological superiority: creative utilization and creative design.

E. Basic devices are as good as the creative uses made of them; Whites developed and utilized key devices more robustly than did Chinese.

F. Whites surged ahead in technological fields based on creative design; China retained a lead in fields based on subtle knowledge and experience.

G. Review of Europe’s technological prowess in 1500: 1. Architecture 2. Power machinery 3. Mechanical clocks 4. Movable type printing 5. Instrument-making 6. Weaponry 7. Mining 8. Ship-building.

H. White science and technology merged in Europe’s Industrial Revolutions.

I. White science and technology created the modern world.

J. Despite enormous transfers and ongoing theft of White technology, China continues to lag.

V-3. Whites are also superior to the Chinese at scientific, institutional, and artistic innovation.

A-D: Science.

A. Whites scientifically investigated, analyzed, and classified the world much more than Chinese.

B. The White Scientific Revolution.

C. The Chinese scientific record has been paltry in comparison to Whites’.

D. Claims of Chinese scientific achievements are much exaggerated.

E-H: Government and education.

E. White governments are more representative, embedded, and stronger than Chinese.

F. Whites have led the world in governmental innovations.

G. Europe has long been superior to China in book production, education, and literacy.

H. China’s despotic government was deficient in many respects, and declined over time.

I-K: Industry, trade, and finance.

I. White governments actively supported industry and trade, while China stifled it.

J. Whites have led the world in economic innovation and development.

K. Whites have long had superior industry, trade, wages, and GDP to China.

L-M: Artistic innovation.

L. Whites have had more eminent artists than Chinese.

M. Whites have made many major innovations in the arts.

V-4. Arguments.

Introduction: Anti-White propaganda with a familiar theme.

A. Argument: “China’s superior trade balance with Europe in the 18th century, by which they obtained a lot of Europe’s silver in trade for its commodities, shows that it was technologically/ industrially superior at this late point in time.”

1. Europe was in fact economically superior to China in the 18th century, and imported from China mostly raw materials.

2. China restricted imports but wanted silver, a valuable commodity.

3. Europe’s silver trade with China was just an aspect of its international trade dominance.

B. Argument: “Europe’s industrial success was due to its privileged access in its colonies to raw materials such as cotton, sugar, and silver, to customers, and to its exploitation of slave labor.”

1. Europe’s development of resources into products was a consequence of its technology; its colonies were unnecessary and hardly worth the costs.

2. Colonies were only a small factor in Britain’s industrial success, and Britain usually had to pay fair market value for the materials it imported.

3. Northern Europe which industrialized got little of the supposed “windfalls” of precious metals and slaves; China had plenty of cheap labor.

4. China possessed enormous domestic supplies of raw materials that Europe lacked, including cotton and sugar, and a bigger market.

5. China obtained a great bounty of de facto colonial acquisitions in the 17th-18th centuries.

C. Argument: “Europe’s Industrial Revolution was due to the good fortune of Britain having a lot of coal located near industrial areas.”

1. The Industrial Revolution, in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, was not dependent on coal.

2. Britain’s innovation drove its Industrial Revolution; the location of coal deposits hardly mattered.

3. China had more coal deposits than Britain and every opportunity to develop them.

D. Argument: “Britain’s industrial success was due to its cheap energy and high wages that induced the replacement of human labor with machines.”

1. Britain’s industrial success was due to the innovation and skill of her people; its wages were high because its labor productivity was high.

2. The skill of British craftsmen was renowned throughout Europe, and they commanded higher wages everywhere.

3. Britons innovated irrespective of labor costs, and Britain’s highest wages shifted to areas having more innovation and industry.

E. Argument: “China’s decline was due to European opium trade and the Opium Wars, and the consequent drain of China’s silver.”

1. China’s decline had been going on for centuries, the trade wars were short, and China was largely responsible for opium proliferation.

2. The amount and effects of China’s silver drain due to opium are much exaggerated; China’s real currency problem was its lousy monetary system.

3. Chinese government and military officials fully collaborated with opium trade and distribution, as well as domestic production.

4. Given the Chinese high demand and extensive collaboration, stopping the opium trade to China was impossible.

5. The Anglo-Chinese Wars were launched against China’s unfair trade and negotiation policies, not its opium embargo.

6. The Anglo-Chinese Wars shocked the insular Chinese into engaging with the modern world.

The purpose of this essay.

The purpose of this essay is not to bash the Chinese people. It is, rather, to elucidate the qualities of the White people whom I love, and to thereby, hopefully, inspire some of us to support the Cause of averting our impending extinction. I don’t think it is enough to just say Whites are a unique and worthy folk. Some specificity is needed. I could just say that Whites are “relatively” trusting, compassionate, moral, cooperative, creative, innovative, etc. But every people has these qualities to some extent or other, and the difference of degree I indicate has little meaning without some substantive comparison. I believe that the only way to really substantiate the White qualities I assert is to compare them with their counterparts in the one other race that has a comparable intelligence and historical record, the Chinese.

My interest in the nature of ideas.

I’m an introspective person. I’ve been contemplating how my mind works, as sort of a hobby, since I was in junior high at 13, and have been formulating principles thereof since I became a dedicated Spinozist at 15. That was more than ten years before I became racially aware. I’m well past 40 now. The principles of idea formation discussed in section III are my original work, though I would assume that others have published similar ideas. These principles (and others) have long resided in my head and in my numerous spiral notepads. I did not develop them ad hoc as a basis for my assertion that Whites are more creative than Chinese.

A word on the import of trust.

Addressing my compatriots in the movement to secure the existence of our people and a future for White children: I know that some of you will be put off by my emphasis on the trait of trust. Some of you think that trust is the worst trait we’ve got, the cause of all our troubles. But upon reflection trust can be seen to be the basis of all the moral sentiment that distinguishes our people and makes us worth saving. I’ll explain. Of course people love their family. A mother rat has compassion for its babies, though probably not for anyone else. Of course people are considerate toward their ingroup of friends and acquaintances whom they know well. And of course people follow the rules/laws that their organization or government has prescribed, that they have agreed to. But these basic instincts, agreements, and civil actions do not reach the level of moral conduct. Moral conduct is selfless behavior, having an (opportunity-) cost to oneself, that a person undertakes for the well-being of someone he doesn’t know, of people outside his ingroup, of his society or his posterity in general. To have moral sentiment, a person must have goodwill toward unfamiliar people. We make judgments on the merits of individuals we meet and learn about, on how deserving they are of our goodwill. But what determines our goodwill towards those we do not know, those who are unfamiliar? Trust. Our level of trust that they are ‘one of us’, that they are related. Our level of trust that they are trustworthy. Our level of trust that they are good, compassionate, moral people. Our level of trust that our goodwill is reciprocated by them, that our good deeds will ultimately rebound as everyone does their part to contribute to the well-being of our common society, our nation. Trust is the basis of moral sentiment and conduct.

As is frequently pointed out by those concerned for the plight of our dear folk, our most distinctive and precious trait—trust—has been perverted by our enemies, to induce us to trust the untrusting and untrustworthy aliens who seek to devour our fair nations. In our native environment of rural Europe, extending trust to a hardy man who offered his work or requested a helping hand was a good policy. Extending trust and moral sentiment to fellow Whites is the natural and proper attitude for us to have. But extending it to a similar degree to nonwhites is a grave folly. We must learn to draw this crucial distinction, or we and our trusting way of life will perish.

Two key differences between Whites and Chinese.

White and Chinese differences are based on two basic character traits: trust and explorativity. Whites are more aggressive and curious, and more socially outgoing and compassionate. Chinese are more timid and task-focused, and more socially solidary and in/out-group conscious. Whites are more trusting and empathetic, meaning they are more moral and cooperative, their societies are freer, and their governments are more representative and embedded in society. Chinese are less trusting and empathetic, meaning they are more selfish, their societies are more hierarchical, and their governments are more despotic and corrupt. Whites are more explorative and curious about their environs, making them more eager to explore, to play, and to consider and experiment with novel ideas. Chinese are more task-focused and have higher memory-based intelligence, making them better learners and more persistent and skilled at tasks having a definite objective. Whites’ higher creativity leads to greater innovation in science and technology, including institutional and cultural. Chinese higher intelligence leads to superiority at all productive skills not requiring power athletics.

I. The evolutionary basis of White-Chinese differences in trust and explorativity: rural versus urban agricultural environments.

The disparity between Whites and Chinese on the traits of trust and explorativity arose from their differing environments: the cold, rugged, heavily forested lands of Europe and the warm, alluvial plains of China’s great river deltas. Areas of fertile and level soil were scattered about in Europe,¹ while China’s large alluvial plains where its dense population was concentrated were easily worked and extremely fertile.²

Europeans required more land to harvest sufficient food under their challenging conditions for agriculture.³ They pioneered independent homesteads and pastures, sowing crops during their short growing season and subsisting partly on animal husbandry and hunter-gathering. Chinese attained high-yield agriculture and high population densities precociously, and soon came to rely on large irrigation projects closely coordinated with neighbors under government management.⁴

Rural, independent Europeans had a relative abundance of natural resources such as land, forests, and wildlife.⁵ The challenge in Europe was to creatively develop these resources in their harsh environment, which included making compacts with distant neighbors to assist with labor and equipment needs. There was always more marginal land and more resources that could be worked for a living, so congestion and conflicts were limited.⁶ Strangers in these environs who made overtures were likely to be vigorous, fairly independent and trustworthy.

Urban, interdependent Chinese lived among a concentration of people who managed and fully developed available natural resources, leading to shortages of resources.⁷ The challenge in China was to obtain as large a share as possible of a finite pool of resources and goods.⁸ This was done by working one’s small plot adeptly,⁹ by maintaining close relationships (alliances) with one’s clan and governors, and/or by extracting levies as a governor.¹⁰ Strangers in these environs who made overtures were less likely to be independent and trustworthy, and more likely to be desperate.

Higher trust was favored in Europe because its more independent people were more trustworthy, and cooperative working relationships often had to be sought out and formed. In China, extended family and neighbors lived closeby, and work projects were often supervised by government. With China’s more intensive conflict for scarcer resources, extending trust and compassion to a stranger, to anyone outside one’s clan, was more risky and costly. As a defensive measure, Chinese developed solidary, authoritarian social groups based on extended family, with moral standards conditioned on ingroup/outgroup status.¹¹ Europeans developed a broader morality and cooperated more freely with society members at large.

Higher curiosity and explorativity was favored in Europe because it had a greater variety of accessible terrains and resources that could be developed in various ways. Chinese in their alluvial plains had fewer such opportunities and, with resource scarcity, greater need to conserve energy for essential, productive tasks. China’s environment instead favored skill, efficiency, and persistence. Any innovations or advantages gained by Chinese initiative were quickly appropriated by clan and neighbors; while European homesteads succeeded or failed according to their own creativity. The explorativity of Europeans ranged from pioneering new lands, to experimenting with new materials and devices, to considering new, innovative ideas.

II. The higher trust and compassion of Whites engenders greater morality and freedom.

Introduction: The nature of morality.

While of course there is a disagreement on just what conduct is in a society’s best interests, and anyone will behave ‘morally’ when their personal interests happen to coincide with society’s, moral behavior is essentially (in)action taken for the benefit of others at some (opportunity-) cost to oneself, i.e. kindness or consideration that is not compelled and does not gain a direct reward. Conversely, immorality is (in)actions taken for the benefit of oneself at some (opportunity-) cost to others, offenses not necessarily egregious enough to constitute a crime. People behave morally for several reasons, all based on trust and acceptance. People can feel compassion for others, with an urge to avert or relieve their (potential) suffering and promote their well-being, a concern beyond their own family and ingroup. People can want the approval and love of others that moral conduct merits, and have an aversion to others’ antipathy if acting immorally. And people can have an abstract expectation of reciprocity by society in general: a faith that good deeds will rebound as everyone ultimately does their part to contribute to the public good.

A moral people has much concern for their community and nation, and optimism for winning their approval and love. A moral people does not expect direct reciprocation for every kind and honest deed, nor a reward for every act of sacrifice for the national welfare, nor a payment for every contribution to society. A moral people respects all members of their society, trusting others and treating them fairly. They do not form solidary social groups having an ‘us versus them’ attitude, with lower standards of morality practiced toward those outside the group. They do not receive a ‘free pass’ for immoral conduct directed against members of society outside their ingroup. They do not selfishly exploit fellow community members who happen to be weaker or less well connected to those in power. And therefore, a moral people enjoys a community spirit and robust cooperation throughout society, without a need for strict governmental discipline that restricts freedom.

Of course, the last thing a moral people should do is accept immoral people into their society, who will only take advantage of their trusting and kindly sentiments, and thereby erode them.

II-1. Chinese are more apprehensive and timid; Whites are more outgoing and aggressive.

Chinese have a more timid, introverted personality type than Whites,¹ consistent with lower trust, that is evident even in infancy. White American babies are more aggressive and active than are Chinese American counterparts, who are more apprehensive and closely attached to their mother in unfamiliar situations.² Whites are more friendly and outgoing toward strangers, while Chinese are reluctant to talk to strangers and often engage in conversation through intermediaries.³ Whites tend to confront adversaries directly to resolve differences, sometimes through fights; whereas Chinese avoid confrontation as much as possible, often resolving disputes through intermediaries,⁴ and rarely fight physically even when a shouting match ensues.⁵ In contrast to Whites, Chinese have no tradition of vigorous sports and rarely play them.⁶ Chinese submit to authority more readily than do Whites,⁷ though they will revolt en masse when oppression becomes intolerable.⁸ The Chinese aversion to physical confrontation is likely a ‘survival strategy’ evolved in the context of China’s high level of social conflict: those inclined to fight when offended could not last long.

II-2. Whites’ greater trust and honor enables freer communication and transactions; while cooperation among Chinese is problematic.

There is much evidence that Whites have greater trust and honor than Chinese, beyond their more outgoing personality type. Whereas Whites’ homes are relatively exposed to visitors, Chinese homes are usually enclosed in walls.¹ Whereas Whites are usually open to answer inquiries of visitors about their identity and the people and places of their town, Chinese are very reluctant to answer such questions.² Whereas White businesses are managed by any group of individuals with compatible talents who get together, Chinese businesses are mainly owned and managed by members of the same family, since outsiders are not trusted.³ In some cases when a Chinese outside the owning family was employed as a branch manager, his family was actually held hostage to ensure loyalty.⁴ Whereas Whites typically make deals through direct talks, Chinese typically negotiate via a third party mediator to ensure each side upholds his end.⁵ Chinese emperors actually assigned Europeans to collect their own custom fees at the border, since fellow Chinese were not trusted to do it.⁶ The greater trust and honor of Whites is evident in the much lower interest rates for loans they have had throughout history,⁷ and in the greater reliability of their currency and specie.⁸ While Whites readily form large, cooperative groups, Chinese society is very fractious.⁹

II-3. Compassion for the distressed is greater among Whites than Chinese.

Compassion, like trust, is hard to measure, but callousness is witnessed in China that is jarring to the sensibilities of Whites. Chinese regimes are often ruthless in their predations and impressments of their own people.¹ Chinese law enforcement is arbitrary and cruel, torturing plaintiffs as well as defendants, and sometimes killing whole families.² This in recent times, not only the distant past. Communist China is no exception.³

China’s compassion deficiency extends far beyond the talons of government. When accidents occur with victims in distress, Whites usually intervene to help, but Chinese may intervene—if at all—only to take advantage of the chaos.⁴ Whites tend to be indulgent toward weak members of society, but in China unfortunate folk such as cripples and enslaved daughters-in-law are typically objects of scorn.⁵ Chinese girls for centuries were subjected to the horrific practice of foot-binding, that ended only recently.⁶ Most Whites are compassionate toward companion animals and concerned for the welfare of endangered species, while Chinese kill them, often in gratuitously cruel ways, for use as food, clothing, or ritual medicine.⁷ Whereas the majority of Whites allow their organs to be transplanted after death to save those in need, very few Chinese allow this.⁸ There is evidence that Chinese do not feel pain and discomfort as acutely as Whites do, perhaps a factor in their lack of sympathy.⁹

II-4. Communication is more open and honest among Whites than Chinese.

For Whites, speech is chiefly a means to inform and to exchange ideas; for Chinese, speech is merely a tool of manipulation, usually dishonest.¹ Visitors to China find that getting honest answers to inquiries is an exasperating challenge.² Chinese shopkeepers will make any claim to get a sale, and prices are always a matter of ‘negotiation’, i.e. of what pains one is willing to take to avoid getting ripped off.³ Contracts made by Chinese are often broken.⁴ Chinese are far more prolific than Whites at crimes of deception (section II-6.A). Even when caught red-handed, Chinese seldom admit to any wrongdoing, but rather “save face” by making up preposterous excuses.⁵ Chinese lies often come with a big smile and declarations of Confucian piety.⁶ A Chinese ‘on his game’ is effusively expressive: graciously cordial to elicit goodwill, tragically grief-stricken to elicit sympathy, or ragingly indignant to elicit guilt.⁷ They can switch from one of these moods to another on a dime, as circumstances suggest.⁸ Some Chinese lies are just an effort to avoid direct denial or refusal, without a real intention to deceive.⁹

II-5. Whites have greater moral drive than Chinese, in general.

A. Whites have greater moral drive, based on greater trust and empathy and lower outgroup discrimination.

While the wisdom of any particular morally-motivated course of action is open to doubt, Whites typically have greater moral drive than Chinese. In Whites’ challenging but less densely-populated and less resource-scarce evolutionary environment, behaving altruistically to assist nonfamilial neighbors and engender goodwill had greater rewards and less risk than did such conduct in China’s environment (section I).

Whites have a more trusting attitude toward strangers (section I-1-2), and more faith that others have a similar positive attitude as themselves and so will reciprocate acts of kindness. Whites have more sympathy for others’ suffering (section I-3), greater perceived prospect of winning others’ love, and more concern for their community and nation (and even—foolishly—for nonwhites).¹ Chinese, on the other hand, have less regard for those outside their ingroup and expect direct reciprocity for any gifts given or services rendered.² Chinese have double standards of morality: one standard for family/ingroup and a lower standard for others.³ Being inconsiderate to a stranger does not hurt a Chinese’s standing with his ingroup;⁴ but a White who is callous to a stranger will likely receive the censure of family and friends, since they make but minimal distinction between ingroup and outgroup. Chinese society is very fractious, with minimal cooperation beyond that enforced by authority.⁵ Chinese have extreme contempt for foreigners, notwithstanding their affected grace and courtesies.⁶

B. Whites behave more morally than Chinese, in every respect.

Whites behave more morally than Chinese in every respect. Reviewed above are Whites’ greater honor, compassion, and honesty. As reviewed, Whites are more considerate to strangers they encounter in public, being more friendly, respectful, and helpful. Chinese are pushy, rude and loud in their random public encounters.¹ Whites are more responsible about picking up after themselves and keeping public places clean. Chinese habitually litter, and their public eating facilities, toilets, streets, train stations, etc. are often filthy.² Chinese are the worst air and water polluters, and responsible for about 67% of the plastic waste dumped into the world’s oceans.³ Chinese are also well known to be cheaters on school applications and exams.⁴ Whites also have greater patriotism.⁵ When a White nation is attacked, people of all its regions join together in patriotic defense, and military leaders are unified and loyal. When China is attacked, people of distant regions are indifferent and the military divided; regional generals selling their wares only at dear prices or colluding with the enemy.⁶ The greater regard for honor and duty of White officials is discussed in section II-8.E. What morals the Chinese have are the obligatory bonds of family, and conventions of etiquette carried out with guests and customers, usually for a definite purpose.

C. Cultural norms of morality are based on genotypes.

It may be objected that morals are mediated by cultural norms, and that Chinese living in White nations behave better than those in China. This is true, but cultural norms are themselves forged by genotypes. Cultural norms in White nations are shaped by their predominantly White genes. Chinese who move to a White nation quickly learn that among Whites they can’t get away with the same shenanigans taken for granted in their homeland (not so blatantly, at least), and so they behave better. However, if the proportion of Chinese genes in a country passes the point at which Chinese dispositions determine cultural norms, Chinese moral culture and behavior will revert accordingly.

II-6. Crime, abuse, and war: Whites are more aggressive, Chinese are more deceptive.

A. White deviants commit more crimes of aggression; Chinese commit more crimes of deception.

Whites are more vigorous and aggressive than Chinese, and so, while Whites have low crime rates, they have more deviant individuals who commit aggressive sorts of crimes than do Chinese. Chinese are averse to physical confrontation (section II-1), but commit more crimes involving deception, such as corruption, counterfeiting, and fraud. Chinese regularly abuse their power (next section), and profusely engage in corruption (section II-8.E). Until very recently, paper currency and face-value coins were only sporadically used in China because of rampant overprinting and counterfeiting,¹ and precious metal coins were frequently debased and so had to be regularly ‘chopped’ to check for authenticity.² Chinese are virtuosi at all forms of scam artistry, posing as fake English and art students, fake tea house hosts, fake taxi drivers, fake monks, officials, doctors, policemen, school superintendents, etc., and utilizing fake bus stops or fake credit card machines, and the like.³ Chinese are infamous for knockoffs of White-created products, and only the Chinese are audacious enough to sell rats as beef, plastic as rice, and concocted fake eggs, walnuts, etc.⁴ China’s fakes trade is an estimated 8% of its economy.⁵

B. Much exploitation and abuse by Chinese is not regarded as crime.

Chinese commit many offenses that aren’t regarded as crime, since dominance relationships are sanctioned by Chinese ethics¹ and law.² What Whites call slavery, abuse, and exploitation, Chinese call governing, parenting, and managing. Each of these institutions in China is strictly hierarchical, with rulers having arbitrary power and subordinates having few if any rights. Chinese governments dictate to their subjects,³ Chinese patriarchs abuse or exploit their women and children,⁴ and Chinese bosses “squeeze” their employees,⁵ and these ‘victims’ can scarcely appeal to law enforcement. Chinese are also prolific at lesser moral offenses as discussed above, such as verbal assaults and slander, littering and polluting, duplicity and betrayal. Much of this devilry is just taken for granted as a matter of course in China.

C. Whites fight more wars; Chinese have more rebellions.

Whites launch more wars than do Chinese, while Chinese launch more mass revolts against their tyrannical governments. White soldiers will engage in battle aggressively, while Chinese armies are reluctant to take the field and often pursue unaggressive forms of resolution, such as deception, bribery, subversion, and mediation.¹ Some Chinese weapons were designed as much to make terrifying noise as to inflict damage.² Warfare between Whites tends to be more destructive, because White governments are better organized and stronger (section V-3.E-K) and have greater technological capabilities (section V-2.G.6). Though Chinese as individuals rarely defy authority, when oppression becomes intolerable they rebel en masse, and have had sufficient reason to do so hundreds of times throughout their history—more than any other people.³

D. Competition is the law of nature.

Warfare is not necessarily immoral. Competition and struggle is the law of nature; a people must fight to secure resources. Aggression against one’s own kind, to which one is bonded by kinship, citizenship, or friendly relations, is more evil than aggression against aliens, especially inherently hostile ones. Lower-achieving races will always be envious of more successful ones and wish to take what they have created. In an honest martial contest, the more virtuous side prevails and humanity can thereby progress. All races have conquered or enslaved whom they could. Whites have been more magnanimous: ending slavery within their lands, freeing subject peoples whom they could have ruled forever, and providing unending aid and assistance to those they defeated. Wars launched by Whites have typically been confined to limited objectives and battles between soldiers on the field, and have ended with conciliatory peace treaties. Unfortunately, more degenerate warfare has occurred when an alien religion deluded some Whites into thinking that other Whites were evil “heretics”, and when alien subversives deluded some Whites into thinking that other Whites were evil “Huns” or “Nazis”.

II-7. White families are voluntary unions; Chinese families are communist.

A. Chinese families are highly solidary because Chinese society is insecure; White families are freer.

People who feel insecure, who live in fear, untrusting of the general populace, tend to form solidary social groups for protection. Such groups are authoritarian, having a strong leader to maintain order and strong bonds of mutual sharing and responsibilities. The traditional Chinese family is such a group.¹ It is relatively large, often including the families of adult sons and extending to a wider family—a clan, that may encompass a whole village.² The patriarch exerts dominance over his women and children throughout their lives, controlling their residence, work, and marriage.³ Traditional White families, especially those of northwest Europeans, are smaller and looser. Older children are relatively independent, free to choose their career, where they want to work, and whom they want to marry. They often choose to move out at a young age, to live alone, and to marry late or never. What portion of their property and income they share with their parents, siblings, and children, is up to them.

B. Chinese families are tightly disciplined.

A traditional Chinese family is typically as large as its plot of land will support,¹ and is hierarchical and tightly disciplined.² The patriarch is the dictator. He rules over his wife, and can have multiple wives, concubines and prostitutes.³ There is an age-based hierarchy among the brothers (often numbered), as well as any wives or concubines.⁴ Parents decide where their children will live, how they will work, and whom they will marry.⁵ Children are required by law to obey their parents and to fully support them throughout life.⁶ Penalties for disobedience are severe, including torture, imprisonment, and decapitation.⁷ If a son brings an accusation of parental wrongdoing to authorities, he will be severely punished by law even if his charge was true.⁸ Sons are not allowed to separate from parents without permission.⁹ Daughters are usually sold off (via betrothal gifts) as a bride at a young age to become the life-long work slave of her in-laws.¹⁰ The punishment for marrying without permission is typically 80 to 100 blows of the heavy bamboo.¹¹ Boys as well as girls can be hired out for work by parents, though girls are usually confined to the home.¹²

C. Chinese families have collective responsibilities.

Traditional Chinese families are generally treated and taxed as a unit by the state.¹ Families are sometimes punished as a whole, and members are sometimes substitutable for punishment.² Successful Chinese individuals, even if having left the home, are required to share property, income, and employment with ‘less fortunate’ members of the family—nepotism is prevalent.³ This means that a successful man may be deluged with relatives, and may try to conceal any wealth.⁴ Upon a death, periods of mourning and attendance of shrines are exactingly prescribed according to one’s degree of relationship with the deceased.⁵ Punishments for crimes within families were regulated according to these same degrees of relationship.⁶ Notwithstanding all these bonds, Chinese families are not always cozy affairs. There is a reason for all those strict regulatory laws. Chinese families are often fractious and abusive, failing to keep their obligations except when pressed, as you might expect of people forced to live together, to submit and to yield to others.⁷

II-8. White governments are representative cooperations; Chinese governments are despotisms.

Introduction.

Chinese rulers are more despotic and less compassionate toward subjects than are White rulers. White citizens have more local autonomy, more representation in government, and more rights. Chinese government exerts wider control over economic, educational and religious activities, but often merely to restrict them. White government, being more embedded within its nation, is stronger and more effective in managing these activities. Chinese rule is more arbitrary and self-serving, while White rule is more grounded in law and dutiful.

A. White citizens are more independent.

White leaders throughout history have been more independent of central authority than Chinese leaders, more constrained by law toward their subordinates and subjects,¹ and more subject to the approval of legislative bodies representing their citizenry.² Early Germanic tribes were organized into voluntary ‘brotherhoods’ with an elected leader.³ Feudal fealty between Whites was a contract of mutual duties, which each had a right to nullify if the other proved unfaithful;⁴ while Chinese feudal fealty was absolute.⁵ Many European regions split apart completely into separate nations, while China merged into a single megastate ruled by an emperor. White nobles, clergy,⁶ and towns retained a degree of autonomy and rights,⁷ their leaders meeting in representative bodies that gradually evolved into modern parliaments. China has no such tradition.⁸ White citizens have rights to elect representatives, to voice their political views, to practice their religion, to be secure in their property, and to not be arrested and punished without due process. Chinese have no such rights.⁹

B. Chinese rulers are more despotic.

Before its present totalitarian Communist regime, China was ruled by emperors worshipped as the “Son of Heaven”. Those blessed to be in the presence of the emperor, or even of a letter he had written, kowtowed: they bowed down touching their head to the ground nine times.¹ The elites bathed in luxury while the people languished.² The emperor and his officials were not constrained by a constitution and had few written laws they needed to bother about.³ Criminal laws provided exemptions and lighter punishments for higher ranking personages.⁴ Officials governed arbitrarily with a wide range of powers,⁵ punished dissent as they pleased,⁶ and seized property and conscripted labor and soldiery as they wished.⁷ Chinese people often concealed any wealth, to avoid confiscation.⁸ The ruling class installed Confucianism, an ethic of respect and obedience to superiors, as the dominant philosophy.⁹ Even Chinese pronouns were made to emphasize rank.¹⁰ Their system of control was so effective at keeping people in line that it lasted for thousands of years.

C. Whites have had more power-sharing institutions; China has been autocratic.

In Europe, there were multiple power centers, including kings, nobles, the church, parliaments, merchant-run cities, and industrial magnates, who continuously jostled for sway;¹ in China, anyone deemed a rival to the imperial dynasty was laid low. To reduce the hereditary power of landed noble families, an examination system based on Confucian dogma was created to admit state officials, who, swearing absolute loyalty to the imperial family, were removed from their home district and rotated about.² China’s main folk religion was run by the state,³ and other religious institutions such as Buddhism were brought under state control and ‘Confucianized’, never obtaining the independent power that Christianity did in Europe.⁴ China’s imperial schools and its astronomers-cum-astrologers were obliged to serve imperial propaganda;⁵ while universities in Europe had sufficient independence to seek objective truths.⁶ The Chinese state took control of most major industries,⁷ often restricted economic activity including international trade,⁸ and prevented businessmen from gaining the political sway they have had in White nations. While European businesses negotiated and cooperated as equals with government,⁹ Chinese businesses could operate only at the pleasure of officials and were often exploited.¹⁰

D. Communist China is autocratic, just as were imperial regimes.

China’s present Communist regime is much like its past regimes, with a small elite class dictating to and exploiting the masses.¹ The imposition of Communism was a mass torture and murder operation.² Chinese people are permitted few rights; not even to a fair trial, free movement, or child-birth.³ While White citizens take for granted the right to criticize their government, in China this is hazardous to your health. You will soon find yourself being tortured in a “black jail” or doing hard labor in a slave camp.⁴ A popular spiritual meditation movement called Falun Gong is getting brutally persecuted, its practitioners even utilized for organ harvesting.⁵ China’s regime strictly monitors and censors all forms of media, including the internet.⁶ Nor did China’s long history of corruption skip a beat with the rise of Communism (next section).

E. White governors are generally honorable; Chinese governors are generally corrupt.

In White nations, government officials are generally honorable, while in China they are generally corrupt. Whites typically perform services to the public out of a sense of duty and make decisions fairly according to law, not expecting any quid pro quo from those served. Cases of corruption occur, but they are scandalous events. In China, graft and corruption are practically taken for granted, business as usual,¹ notwithstanding the government’s perpetual anti-corruption sloganeering.²

The magnitude of the Chinese corruption harvest is staggering.³ Anything one needs service or approval for—a business license, a contract, a building permit, a job, a criminal investigation or trial, even a good doctor or school—requires furnishing bribes to the authorities beyond any official fees.⁴ Corruption in China is part of a broader system of “squeeze”, whereby every worker takes a piece of the earnings of underlings while ceding a piece to superiors.⁵ Officials are often underpaid and expected to collect extra ‘fees’ to augment their income.⁶ The civil service examination system was corrupt as well; official degrees purchased as a license to ‘hunt and fish’ the people.⁷ Tax collection was often farmed out, the collectors charging what they pleased.⁸ Nepotism is prevalent.⁹ Corruption of course impairs efficiency; a network of hospices was abandoned by the Qing due to rampant fraud and corruption,¹⁰ and a postal relay system was restricted since local officials exploited it.¹¹ Aid supplies donated to China were often just sold to the highest bidder.¹² Today’s Communist China is equally corrupt.¹³

F. Whites’ representative governments are stronger and more effective than China’s despotic regimes.

One might think that the despotic nature of Chinese government, with its emphasis on hierarchy and obedience, might mean greater organization and cooperation, but the reverse is actually true. Despotic governments tend to be weakest and least effective, while governments of a well represented, free citizenry tend to be strongest. A representative government is embedded within its nation, and citizens support its taxes and programs because they trust that it is working in their interests.¹ Willing cooperation by civic-minded patriots is more effective than forced ‘cooperation’ by exploited subjects. Despotic states are effective at obstruction and destruction, but not at creation.² China’s regimes could only push so hard; Chinese history is an endless series of rebellions.³ China’s imperial government actually grew weaker over time; by ~1800 it failed to provide even basic infrastructure and services.⁴ Since medieval times Europe has provided more welfare programs and relief to its poor, even as a portion of GDP.⁵ With White technology China is wealthier today, but allows its environment to be disastrously degraded.⁶

For many centuries, White governments have managed superior legal and judicial systems, superior military, superior infrastructure, superior financial systems, superior stimulation of industry and trade, superior education systems, and superior welfare programs (section V-3.E-K). White governments are a product of more trusting, cooperative White people.

III-IV. Introduction: Whites are more explorative and creative than Chinese, while Chinese have higher memory-based intelligence.

In section III, I will review the bases and characteristics of memory-based and creative/analytic intelligence. In section IV, I will review the evidence that Whites to a greater degree have characteristics of the latter, and Chinese of the former.

A. Superior White explorativity and creativity; Superior Chinese memory and skill.

Whites and Chinese developed different abilities based on the crucial difference in their environments: the greater general resource availability but more challenging agricultural conditions in Europe (section I). Whites became more curious and explorative, more proficient at acquiring and analyzing information and resources to develop them creatively; while Chinese became more proficient at skillfully utilizing the resources at hand to attain maximum efficiency. Whites are superior at discovering information, determining principles of cause-effect, forming creative ideas, and making sound judgments based on general knowledge; while Chinese are superior at learning known data and principles, applying them to calculation, and developing academic and motor skills.

B. Whites have more discrete and abstract perception; Chinese have more concrete and detailed perception.

A key difference between White and Chinese intelligence lies in how discretely and abstractly they perceive sensings and memory. Whites focus more on the objects in their environment, viewing them more discretely and perceiving their basic characteristics more abstractly. Chinese perceive scenes more concretely and fully, in greater detail, hence memorizing imagery more keenly. Whites perceive objects more discretely because they more actively consider (and do) various actions upon them, and more abstractly because they more creativity consider substituting them in alternative contexts in which they could be utilized for varying purposes. Chinese perceive and memorize situations more fully so that they will be able to more readily and precisely match an encountered situation to a reference situation in memory, finely distinguished from similar such memories, to more accurately predict an outcome and/or determine an optimum course of action to obtain a desired result.

C. Creative/analytic and memory-based intelligence are broadly correlated, despite being inversely related at high levels.

Of course, both Whites and Chinese can create ideas and develop skills, i.e. they both have creative/analytic and memory-based intelligence. Creativity depends upon good memory and memory-based skills, and so naturally these abilities are broadly correlated across races and individuals; the inverse relationship I point to existing only among relatively intelligent people. To illustrate by analogy: Agility and power-lifting abilities are broadly correlated across people, both of them based on general bodily strength and various fitness and health factors. But these abilities are inversely correlated among athletes who are good at both, varying on the factor of bulk of muscularity. Creativity and memory-based intelligence are also broadly correlated across people, both of them based on general memory strength and various mental faculties. But they are inversely correlated among smart people who are good at both, varying on the factor of abstractness of perception.

III. The nature of intelligence, explorativity, and creativity.

III-1. The nature of memory-based intelligence.

A. Applications of memory-based intelligence.

Memory-based intelligence utilizes keen memory of information already experienced or learned to determine actions to obtain a goal. Such memory includes data required for actions (e.g. a name, a number, a location); discriminating details of reference situations needed to predict a given situation accurately; exact scenarios in which certain, precise courses of action have yielded a goal; and retention of objects/data in ‘working memory’ that enables mental manipulation and combination and/or comparison of them. Keen memory is facilitated by persistent study and focus on tasks. While all intelligence is based on good memory, much intelligence is not creative. Visuo-spatial ability, the ability to mentally ‘project’ considered actions upon objects, can be a tool of creativity, but this depends on one’s motives for such considerations. If one is simply following directions or performing routine tasks, for example, there is little creative about it.

B. Keen memory facilitates calculation, as well as recognition.

Memory-based intelligence is more than just accumulation of facts. Strong memory enables discernment of subtle changes and patterns, because memorized detail of antecedent phenomena can be better compared to subsequent phenomena (e.g. emotional cues of a human face, patterns of a matrices series). Strong memory can more precisely match a situation with a previously experienced reference situation in memory (RSM), thus distinguishing similar RSMs from one another to predict more accurately. Strong memory also enables compound, multi-stage calculations, in which preliminary results (e.g. the first rows of a long multiplication problem) are memorized to be operated upon in later stages, or objects/images are mentally modified/combined in progressive steps (e.g. of a geometric construction). Strong memory facilitates the learning and application not only of concrete facts, but also of definite abstract principles, such as visual diagrams illustrating relationships between mathematical or mechanical quantities.

C. Keen memory facilitates manual skills, as well as mental ones.

Strong memory facilitates the development of manual as well as academic skills. Internal, ‘muscle memories’ are retained as well as the external sensings associated with them. Optimizing manual skill requires memorizing exactly what actions in what bodily positions with what objects in what proximity, orientation, and trajectory, yielded exactly what effects. Situations in which a certain course of action obtained a desired outcome are memorized and aimed for. If such an optimum position is within reach, a calculation may be made of how to attain it, projecting one’s bodily movements (and any trajectory of the target object), then making necessary adjustments of position and actions. Also, some materials worked upon have intricate properties (e.g. the fluctuating shape of wet mixtures, the delicate texture of plant fibers), requiring subtle recognitions and manipulations that a keen memory can discern.

III-2. The nature of creative/analytic intelligence.

A. Idea generation is based on explorativity and generation of new knowledge.

Creative intelligence is determination of new means to obtain goals, including material, sensory, and social ones. A creative innovation is a conjunction of a novel use of an object(s) (synthesis) with a component of a goal-obtaining method (analysis).

Creativity can be accomplished serendipitously when ‘random’ recreation, exploration, or examination of new places, objects or devices happens to discover or produce something of value. And the more knowledge one obtains via such ‘recreative’ behavior of the properties of things and the ways they can be manipulated and employed, the more likely such knowledge can be put to innovative use. Creative innovation is usually the result of an experiment based on an idea having a plausible, desired aim. An idea (a novel course of action) is generated by matching an object/action and its effects (on the front end) with the essence of a component of a known method to obtain a goal (on the back end), i.e. by considering a novel ‘substitution’ in such a method. The more actively and ‘randomly’ a mind considers acting upon objects, the more likely it is to make such a conjunction.

B. Idea generation requires abstract perception, in order to match knowledge with methods to obtain goals.

Identifying such a match of an object/action with a potential use is facilitated by considering each step of a goal-obtaining method (including the goal itself) discretely and determining its bare essence, in order to minimize the characteristics that need be matched by a possible substitution. This is presumably done by comparing the instances where the method was used successfully, to identify their commonality and trim out incidental detail, such as color, texture, location, and inessential parts. The more abstractly a method to a goal is considered, the more instances of its use can be incorporated as consistent with it, and so the more reduction of incidental detail via ‘cancellation’ can be done. The essence of a natural property or process, or of a method to obtain a goal, is formulated as a principle.

The more abstract a principle, the more incorporations (consistent particular instances) can be made of its cause (its antecedent), that would presumably yield its effect (its consequent). To generate novel ideas, a creative mind conceives abstract principles not only of methods to obtain goals, but also of methods to obtain each component or ‘step’ in such methods, and so on, ultimately analyzing phenomena in general. A creative mind then incorporates the principles of goal-obtaining methods as robustly as possible, i.e. it considers a maximum of possible substitutions (particular objects/actions) in them, that constitute potential alternative means to obtain the goals.

C. Matches are made of effects, as well as objects/actions; principles thereof being barely definite.

Ideas are generated not only by matching objects/actions of goal-obtaining methods, but also by matching their more abstract functions/effects. The properties/effects of a given material, tool, device, structure, or machine can be matched to similar properties/effects in a method to obtain a goal, even when the objects producing them are quite different. The commonality of such functions may be so complex and abstract that their principles can hardly be formulated definitely.

The simplest substitution ideas are of materials: different materials having similar properties that can be transformed into construction materials, tools, ceramics and cements, fibers (for cordage, textiles, and paper), adhesives, dyes, fuels, solvents, foods, etc. Various tools and devices can substitute for the functions of human hands, for holding, guiding, lifting and moving, pulling, pressing, mixing, tearing, etc. Various structural arrangements can support heavy weights, and various ‘simple machine’/set-up designs can magnify and redirect applied forces. There are various ways that a surface can be marked, that a fire or explosion can be ignited or accelerated, that a projectile can be launched, that latent energy such as a spring or battery can be gradually released, etc. Some ideas substitute different forms of power: animal strength instead of human, water flow instead of animal, steam pressure instead of water, electric current instead of steam. Some brilliant innovations are based on devices previously used in an entirely different field.

D. A creative mind considers a broad range of potential outcomes, as well as courses of action.

An idea of technological innovation must be verified by actual experiment, but its plausibility can be ‘checked mentally’ by considering the conceived scenario abstractly and incorporating every known instance of it, i.e. every reference situation in memory (RSM), to ‘see’ if a) the desired consequent invariably follows and b) all apparently-necessary cause (the commonality of the RSMs) exists. General predictions, claimed events (outcomes), and supposed principles are checked similarly.

A considered idea’s scenario, or any initial situation, must be considered abstractly in order to match it with the maximum range of applicable RSMs (and their principles), including those varying in details or aspects, to generate the full range of potential outcomes. Thus, more creative/analytic intelligence considers not only more possible interactions with available objects, but also more potential outcomes of situations in general, including less plausible/likely ones. While a concretely-perceiving mind tends to consider only what has previously occurred with the specific set of objects/circumstances in a given specific situation; an abstractly-perceiving mind tends to consider what has previously occurred with the types of objects and circumstances in a given type of situation. While a concretely-perceiving mind tends to be heavily influenced in its predictions by recent outcomes in immediate circumstances; an abstractly-perceiving mind is more conscious of long-term probabilities (including rare events). A creative mind is therefore more doubtful of predictions and cautious of pitfalls in a planned course of action.

E. A creative mind wonders why when anomalous outcomes occur, and thereby refines principles.

A creative mind applies principles to situations in order to predict them, just as it applies RSMs to them. In fact, determining the causal essence of an RSM—that which must be matched in order for its outcome to be effected—is facilitated by comparing multiple instances of this essence in order to identify their commonality, ‘trimming out’ incidental detail via cancellation, as discussed in section III-2.B. In other words, abstract perception and application of RSMs is tantamount to determination and application of principles.

When an anomalous, unexpected outcome occurs or is depicted, a concrete-perceiving mind tends to view it as a unique product of a unique situation (a unique set of circumstances), just one more RSM to file into the memory bank. But for an abstract-perceiver, an unexpected outcome has likely contradicted an assumed principle informed by a broad set of related phenomena, applicable to a range of similar situations. A creative mind doesn’t just assume with “hindsight bias” that an anomalous event was destined; it wonders why it deviated from expectation and seeks to explain it: to identify the key difference between that situation and the antecedent of the assumed principle (and of the RSMs informing it) that it contradicted. For example, if a pretty young girl robs a bank at gunpoint, it would represent not just a bizarre crime having unique circumstances, but also a violation of the principle that girls have timid dispositions, requiring explanation and revision. If the anomalous event was only depicted, its veracity may be doubted. A creative mind often wonders why odd things happened, why its principles have been violated, and thereby scrutinizes and refines them.

F. A creative mind argues and composes similarly as it generates ideas and scrutinizes predictions.

Robustly generating principles, ideas, and RSMs is useful not only for innovation and prediction, but also for argument, advocacy, and creative writing. To argue for or against a claimed event/effect, one must, based on the given situation/antecedent, adduce applicable principles and/or reference data that support or contradict it, and/or identify lacked necessary cause for contrary claims. Arguments that pertain to what did, what (likely) will, or what could happen, are treated similarly. Moral arguments that pertain to benefits and harms allegedly done to people, and whether they’ve merited it by their own deeds, and are treated similarly, as are inspirational arguments that persuade people they have qualities conducive to (causing) success. Legal arguments are treated similarly as well, except that they are based on legal principles and case decision precedents as reference. Fiction writing similarly generates imaginative but plausible ways that an exciting finale can be reached from a depicted situation, often limiting how much is revealed so that the outcome is uncertain, creating mystery and suspense.

III-3. Summary and comparison of memory-based and creative/analytic intelligence types.

A. Memory-based intelligence.

Memory-based intelligence (M-Int) is better able to learn information and techniques that are generally observed or taught, than is creative/analytic intelligence (C-Int). These include the application not only of concrete facts, but also of definite abstract principles, such as those of math and science.

M-Int calculates previously-experienced and accessible outcomes accurately, but tends to overlook less plausible and less well-attested ones. M-Int notices more fine points of change (patterns) in experienced phenomena, and so can detect more subtle principles. M-Int makes finer distinctions between RSMs, and so can more precisely predict familiar situations and optimize courses of action to obtain a goal. In other words, M-Int is better at developing skill than C-Int: manual, academic, and technical. Since M-Int perceives more concretely than C-Int, it considers a narrower range of potential outcomes, and so is more optimistic of expected outcomes, more credulous of depicted claims (e.g. superstitions), and more careless of potential mishaps. However, M-Int wastes less energy in speculation and worry, in pursuing or avoiding ‘false leads’. M-Int is more proficient than C-Int when working in a familiar environment with controlled activities, such as a factory or a schoolroom.

B. Creative/analytic intelligence.

Creative/analytic intelligence (C-Int) is more explorative and curious. It seeks new sources of knowledge and experiments to find out the properties of things. C-Int is more interested in ‘random’ phenomena, asks why when unexpected outcomes occur, and tries to resolve general principles of nature and human behavior even in the absence of apparent utility.

C-Int perceives objects more discretely and abstractly, thereby considering more possible actions on them and more possible substitutions of them in methods to obtain a goal, i.e. it generates more ideas. C-Int similarly perceives general situations more abstractly, thereby considering (matching) more disparate reference situations in memory (RSMs) that may apply, and so considers more possible outcomes including less obvious/likely ones. C-Int considers data from more disparate and remote situations that indicate how a situation might result, e.g. the past behavior and tendencies of a human acter. C-Int therefore has better judgement in complex situations having multiple, distant causal factors.* C-Int generates and considers more arguments for and against an assertion. C-Int is more ‘open-minded’, more doubtful of conclusions, and skeptical of claims. C-Int is more proficient than M-Int when working in a novel environment with dynamic activities, such as a wilderness venture or a public debate forum.

III-4. Intelligence tests and visuo-spatial ability.

A. Intelligence tests, including visuo-spatial tasks, measure memory-based intelligence, not creativity.

Intelligence tests (ITs) have little to do with creativity, and mostly measure memory-based intelligence. Motivation to solve IT problems (to score well) is always a given, and the loci of the answers (the goals) are definite. The information needed to solve IT problems is either general knowledge one may have learned, or is supplied in the problem itself. In some cases, given items must be held in short-term memory to be mentally compared to other items or answer options, to detect similarities (e.g. the margins of puzzle pieces), differences, or patterns (e.g. changes in a matrices series). In visuo-spatial tasks, images must be held in ‘working memory’ to be mentally manipulated, combined, etc. The images to be ‘projected’ are supplied, as are the directions on how to project them, and usually the answer options to which the projections are to be compared. True creativity is, rather, based on one’s inherent urge to ‘randomly’ consider actions upon and uses of objects, and to ‘generally’ analyze and incorporate means to obtain goals (section III-2.A-C). Even in so-called creativity tests, the materials and motivation supplied to perform the tasks obscure differences in subjects’ actual creative drive.

B. Explanation of the male-female visuo-spatial ability gap.

The fact that females have better general memory than males but are inferior at visuo-spatial tasks, evinces that such ability has bases beyond general memory. Visual manipulations and motions are experienced through interacting with objects and watching others do so. Boys have a greater innate drive to perform and observe such activities than do girls. They like to pursue, manipulate, and assemble objects, to wrestle and fight, to compete in and watch sports, to play action-oriented video games, to engage in constructive work, etc. In addition to obtaining greater experience, boys likely have greater innate ability to develop visual memory for such action-related processes. The fine motor skills that females excel at do not involve dynamic visual transformations, and are likely based on females’ keener perception and general memory.

C. The difference between use of abstract principles to calculate, and abstract formulation and perception of principles to generate ideas.

The use of abstract principles for prediction and calculation does not imply a creative disposition. The applications, for example, of basic laws of motion to predict a moving object crossing one’s path, or of Euclid’s laws of triangles to resolve the area of an odd-shaped window, are straightforward and may have as mundane a motivation as dodging a stone or collecting a paycheck. In a truly creative (original) inference, the process and motivation are not so straightforward; the match of an object with a principle’s antecedent is not so plain, and the outcome not so obvious (section III-2.A-D). Creative ideation requires not merely knowledge and application of principles, but conscious consideration of principles abstracted from any given instance, some being hardly definite, for the purpose of incorporating their elements as expansively as possible. In contrast, autistic savants are known to perform complex mathematical and calendrical calculations (etc.) without formulation or conscious awareness of the principles they employ, hence without effort to generate creative ideas (section IV-8.D).

IV. Evidence of intelligence types in Whites and Chinese.

Introduction.

I have reviewed the nature of creative/analytic and memory-based intelligence, and the characteristics associated with each. I will now review the evidence that Whites have more characteristics of creative/analytic intelligence, and Chinese have more characteristics of memory-based intelligence. I will review the pursuits of exploration, recreation, and science; imagination in the creative arts; perception, categorization and reasoning tests; language, expository writing, and debate; religion and superstition; gambling and carelessness; and proficiency in manual and academic skills and intelligence tests.

IV-1. Exploration and recreation.

Logically, people who have active and searching bodies—who explore the world and engage in recreation—also have active and curious minds. And Whites are far more explorative and recreational than are Chinese.

A. Whites are more explorative and interested in scientific discovery than are Chinese.

Europeans have explored, mapped, and investigated the world far more than have Chinese.¹ Nearly all great explorers have been White; very few have been Chinese.² Chinese have had minimal curiosity about the rest of the world and have known far less of it than have Whites,³ even today.⁴ Scientific research and experimentation, a close cousin of exploration,⁵ has also been mainly the province of White men.⁶ Since ancient times, Whites have been eager to explore the outer and inner worlds with telescopes, microscopes, and a miscellany of other instruments they invented for the purpose; while the Chinese had little interest in these tools beyond making politically-based calendars.⁷ Architectural and mechanical forms of technology at which Europeans have excelled, such as their medieval mania for automated devices (e.g. clocks), are also partly recreational pursuits.⁸

B. Whites are more active and recreational than Chinese, who are more task-focused.

The greater restless energy of Whites is equally evident in their day to day recreational activities. Whites can’t wait for school or work to end so that they can run around and play.¹ Chinese are more focused and persistent in productive work, almost immune to boredom and distraction,² but lacking in alacrity and disinclined to physical exertion when no tangible gain is to be had.³ The more subdued nature of Chinese is evident even in infancy and childhood.⁴ Whites strive to sail every sea, climb every mountain, hike every continent, and excel in every sport. Chinese, on the contrary, have hardly any sporting tradition since ancient times.⁵ Chinese rarely participate in sports,⁶ and what spectator leagues they have are very recent and small. While many Japanese play in Major League Baseball, no Chinese ever has.⁷

IV-2. Storytelling, art, and fantasy.

A. Whites are more imaginative in literature and the arts.

A creative mind is naturally evinced by original and imaginative compositions (section III-2.F) and artistic creations. Such ‘excursions’ will seem wasteful to a mind intent on efficient production.

Whites have been more imaginative than Chinese in literature, religion, art, and music. Whereas Europe has a long history of mythological traditions, China has very little indigenous mythology and no great epics of fiction.¹ Chinese folk gods are portrayed to behave as humans.² The fantastical realms and characters of Indian Buddhism were dismissed or converted by the Chinese into ‘historic’ personages,³ and little interest was shown in the heavenly aspects of Christianity.⁴ Chinese philosophical writings are platitudinous,⁵ and Chinese literature in general is loaded with often-unattributed quotations (copy-pastes) of past writers, as well as allusions, cliches, and stereotypes.⁶ Chinese writing tends to be brief and economical.⁷ Chinese art likewise tends to be brief and efficient, typically drawing only the outlines of figures and natural scenes.⁸ Whereas European artists sought originality and developed many artistic styles, Chinese artists in painting as with literature usually closely imitated masters of the past.⁹ Chinese music is also much simpler than European; it is mostly monophonic,¹⁰ as opposed to the rich polyphonic melodies of White composers.¹¹

B. Whites are also more technologically imaginative.

Europe’s imaginative literature extends to the realm of machines and technology. Since about 1200, White philosophers and artists have enthusiastically anticipated the potential of technological advance. They drew up fantastical blueprints of energy-harnessing machines, self-powered carriages, airplanes, and the like, long before their descendants developed the necessary technology. Beginning at about 1400, illustrated technological fantasy books were published in Germany, France, and Italy, called theatrum machinarum. Some of their machines eventually came into being.¹ No such tradition of speculative technology existed in China.²

IV-3. Tests of perception, categorization, and reasoning.

A. Tests indicate that Whites perceive more abstractly than Chinese.

Various experimental tests have been done comparing the perception of scenes, categorization of objects, and reasoning with principles by Whites and Chinese/Asians. The results show that Whites perceive objects more discretely, classify objects more according to abstract properties/functions, and incorporate principles more broadly (i.e. generate more specific instances of abstract categories), than do Chinese/Asians. Some of the test groups were Asian-Americans, who usually score intermediate between Whites and native Asians. This is claimed by egalitarian interpreters to indicate a cultural rather than genetic basis of difference, as they pretend to be ignorant of the fact that culture is itself largely a product of genetics.

B. Whites perceive objects more discretely and recognize them better in novel contexts; Chinese perceive scenes more concretely and memorize background details better.

Perception tests assess the degree to which a subject perceives and memorizes a foreground, focal object in a scene compared to the background context and details. Whites notice more changes in foreground objects, while Asians noticed more changes in background objects.¹ Asians are better able to recall background details than are Whites; Whites are better able to recognize the focal object when presented within a novel background than are Asians,² who evidently memorized it concretely together with its context. This is evidence that Whites perceive objects more discretely and are more apt to consider them in novel contexts, a basis of creativity (section III-2).

In tests showing a focal bar/line within a background frame, Whites are better able to judge the verticality of the bar despite changes in the orientation of the frame,³ and given a new frame, better able to reproduce the actual size of the original line; while Asians are better able to draw a new line of the same relative proportion to the new frame as in the original scene.⁴ This again indicates that Whites focus more on the object while Asians perceive and memorize it concretely together with its background. On Rorshchach ink-blot perception tests, Asians are more likely to ‘interpret’ the entire image; Whites are more likely to interpret a part of it.⁵ On Navon Figures tests, in which many copies of a small letter make up a large letter figure, Asians are more likely to perceive the composite letter first; Whites the small component letter.⁶ Presented with a ‘face’ collage composed of vegetables, Asians are more likely to perceive the full face; Whites the vegetable components.⁷ In all these tests, Whites perceive more discretely and analytically; Asians more concretely.

C. Whites more actively focus upon objects and consider their properties.

Physiological tests done in conjunction with such perception tests show that Whites’ greater attention to foreground, focal objects is not just a matter of selective memory. Whites were found to look more quickly at the focal object and to fixate upon it longer, than do Asians.¹ A study using an MRI scan found that when looking upon scenes Whites activate more brain regions implicated in object processing than do Asians.² This is evidence that Whites’ more discrete perception of objects is based on having a greater inclination to act upon them (focusing the senses being itself an action); a greater urge to act upon random objects being a basis of creativity (section III-2).

D. Whites more associate objects according to their effects/function than their context.

Grouping tests assess how subjects perceive relationships between items that they must group together by similarity. Whites are more likely to group items that have an abstract similarity of property or function (e.g. both fruits, or both cutting tools); while Asians are more likely to group items that happen to appear or interact together (e.g. cow with grass, or mother with baby).¹ This is evidence that Whites consider the abstract function of objects, as opposed to the contexts they have existed in; a basis of creativity (section III-2). In a similar grouping test, Whites are more likely than Asians to group objects according to their common shape (but differing material), rather than common material (but differing shape);² an object’s shape being a better indicator of its function than its surface appearance.

E. Whites apply principles more robustly, even when implausible, thus considering more potentialities.

Reasoning tests show that Whites apply principles more robustly than do Asians. One type of test presented pairs of arguments and asked subjects which was more convincing. The arguments were simple deductive reasoning: applying a principle having an abstract category antecedent (e.g. All birds have ulnar arteries) to an instance of the category (Therefore all eagles have ulnar arteries). Whites were equally convinced by arguments when the instance was atypical of the category (e.g. penguins), while Asians were less convinced by such arguments.¹ On a more complex deductive reasoning test, Asians made more errors when the consequent seemed implausible for a given instance of the principle’s category (e.g. Therefore cigarettes are good for health).² On a third reasoning test, Asians were less convinced by arguments indicating an undesirable outcome than were Whites (e.g. The price of dining out will increase).³

These results indicate that Whites are more apt to apply principles to objects and situations encountered, even when 1) the match with the antecedent is marginal, or 2) the consequent is contrary to what was expected, or 3) the consequent is undesired. Thus, Whites consider more potential effects (properties and uses) and outcomes of objects and situations, a basis of creativity (section III-2).

F. Whites consider and resolve contradictions more robustly.

Whites also proved to be more concerned about contradictions between principles and instances of them than did Asians. Whites prefer proverbs that do not contain contradictions, while Asians prefer proverbs that do.¹ When shown one or the other of a pair of contradictory propositions (principles), Whites consistently agreed with one and disagreed with the other; while Asians were likely to agree with both.² Whites were likewise more consistent when asked whether they agree or disagree with two contrary attributes about themselves; while Asians tended to affirm both.³ Whites tended to believe the more plausible of two contrary ‘study results’ more strongly after being shown the second one; while Asians afterwards tended to believe them both equally.⁴

These results indicate that Whites evaluate the meaning, implications and accuracy of supposed principles more robustly than do Asians, perceiving them more abstractly in order to incorporate their antecedents with all known instances including those having contrary consequents. Whites thereby perceive and resolve contradictions that don’t concern Asians, an indication of greater creativity (section III-2.E).

IV-4. Language: Analytic clarity versus ornate form.

A. White language is more analytic and abstract; Chinese is more pictographic and concrete.

The languages of Whites and Chinese differ as expected based on Whites being more abstract- and Chinese being more concrete-perceivers. A concrete-perceiver is more inclined to see the actual context of language symbols beyond the discrete symbols themselves, and might therefore have greater difficulty ‘seeing’ the associated meaning. So, it’s not surprising that Chinese characters are more pictographic than Whites’, with many characters actually resembling their meanings.¹ In addition, many abstract concepts in Chinese are expressed in concrete terms; for example, the word meaning “contradiction” is composed of two characters meaning “axe” and “shield”.² Whites compose descriptions more analytically, using definite abstract categories (genus) with definite abstract modifiers (differentia). Chinese on the other hand has more-specific variants of word types, i.e. nouns that are more like proper nouns (etc.).³

B. Chinese are more concerned with writing’s form and context.

The greater focus of the Chinese on writing’s context is evident in other ways. Chinese are more concerned than Whites with having orderly patterns (styles) that extend across lines of text. Chinese tend to write lines that are parallel in syllables and parts of speech (parallelism), and/or that alternate antonymous terms (antithesis).¹ Whites of course have a place for poetry, but stylization tends to permeate all Chinese writing and awareness of it is sometimes crucial for interpreting meaning.² The greater Chinese regard for economy and brevity in writing (section IV-2.A) may also be in part a concern for aesthetic form.³ Chinese greater concern for writing context and form is consistent with more concrete perception.

C. Chinese language and writing is more ambiguous.

Interpreting inexplicit writing with particular meanings is a similar process to incorporating an abstract principle with particular instances of it (section III-2.B). The writer himself knows what meaning he intends, but in order to verify that it will be clear to others, he must incorporate his writing as broadly as possible with potential meanings to detect ambiguity, and when necessary make clarifications that eliminate it. A writer who fails to consider possible alternative interpretations of his writing will cede ambiguity and misunderstandings.

Chinese writing tends to be more ambiguous than White writing. Chinese words themselves tend to be poorly defined, and Chinese writers even in technical fields seldom make glossaries.¹ Chinese words can represent any part of speech and they lack inflections indicating type of noun, tense and mood of verb, etc. Chinese also lacks strict grammar rules and equivalents of pronouns, prepositions, and conjunctions, that are so useful in White languages.² Other sources of ambiguity in Chinese writing are: concerns for aesthetic form (discussed above), frequent use of archaic idioms and allusions,³ lack of punctuation (until recently),⁴ and a relatively large number of words having multiple meanings.⁵ Some clarifying devices are available, but Chinese writers tend not to make use of them, apparently unconcerned about the ambiguity.⁶ The lower ambiguity of Whites’ writing, its greater clarity through the use of genus–differentia and explicit grammar rules, indicates more robust interpretation, an indication of greater creativity.

IV-5. Expository and scientific writing.

A. Whites axiomatized principles into degrees of abstraction, while Chinese made superficial correlations.

The greater inclination of Whites to conceive abstract principles of phenomena is evident in the expository writings of eminent scholars. This is evidence of greater creativity (section III-2).

Both Whites and Chinese recorded phenomena they observed, but only Whites went further and synthesized data into systems of principles ordered from more general to more particular, i.e. only Whites axiomatized natural and social laws.¹ This contrast is evident in the fields of grammar,² of history,³ of philosophy and ethics,⁴ of law,⁵ of economics,⁶ of mathematics,⁷ of mechanics and physics,⁸ of astronomy,⁹ and of science in general.¹⁰ Chinese philosophy is largely anecdotal, and Chinese history and science are mostly piecemeal compilations of individual ‘facts’. Chinese storytelling is similarly “loose, rambling, and episodic”.¹¹ While Whites analyzed data to resolve essential causes and properties, such as the underlying principles of mechanics; Chinese “correlated” data into arbitrary numerical schemes, such as five item categories (e.g. of animals, organs, or emotions) whose items supposedly correlate with their mystical Five Elements of Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal, and Water.¹² Use of such hazy correlations by the Chinese persisted into modern times,¹³ and a deficiency in analysis is observed in modern Chinese students.¹⁴

B. Whites scrutinize and debate principles and assertions more robustly than do Chinese.

Chinese also do not scrutinize, test, argue, nor explain supposed principles and claims of jurisprudence, ethics, science, etc. nearly as much as do Whites. This evinces that Whites both conceive and incorporate principles more robustly, an indication of greater creativity (section III-2.D-F).

The Chinese never developed procedures for testing and debating propositions, i.e. the scientific method, as did Whites.¹ Formal debate has always been rare in China, hardly existing even in judicial proceedings.² The claims of China’s venerable sages are accepted without question,³ and unquestioning acceptance of authoritative assertion continues today toward the gurus of Communism.⁴ China’s civil service examinations were based on rote memory of Confucian literary classics.⁵ What few arguments are made in Chinese philosophy tend to be based on loose, superficial analogies, e.g. ‘man’s nature is indifferent to good and evil just as water is indifferent to the direction it may flow’.⁶ The Chinese showed little interest in logic,⁷ or the proofs of Euclidean geometry.⁸ The essays of modern Chinese students are likewise found to be deficient in orderly argument and explanation.⁹ Relatedly, Chinese students are weaker at discrimination and expression of uncertainty.¹⁰ It is no surprise that Chinese are underrepresented as lawyers and other creative speaking professions.¹¹

IV-6. Religion and superstition.

A. Chinese are more susceptible to superstitious claims, because they are less conscious of contradictions with natural principles.

In contradiction to scientific principles, i.e. natural laws, are beliefs in religion and superstition. When given a supernatural claim, an abstract-perceiver applies more abstract, general principles of natural laws to them and so is more aware of contradictions with them; whereas a concrete-perceiver is more likely to accept such claims as unique outcomes of unique situations including the posited supernatural power (section III-2.D-E). When considering claims of supernatural agency and benefits of appealing to such, an analytic thinker will consider natural laws inconsistent with them, i.e. reference situations of his knowledge and experience with abstractly-similar natural phenomena and the principles thereof. An unanalytic thinker, on the other hand, will be more inclined to optimistically (or pessimistically) accept the proffered claims. Unsurprisingly, Chinese have greater faith in religious/superstitious quackery than do Whites, notwithstanding the number of Whites deluded by Judeo-Christianity.

B. Judeo-Christianity is a relatively plausible religion that generally accepts natural laws.

For all the absurdity that may be found in the Bible, Judeo-Christianity (J-C) is a relatively plausible means of entreatment for magical benefaction. Yahweh is more or less just a single entity, invisible and detached from the physical world (and so not readily disproven), a father figure who supposedly created people in his own image and so has reason to care for them—at least those credulous enough to believe in him. Most White J-Cs believe that Yahweh doesn’t violate natural laws; that he enforces these laws himself.¹ Much of the Biblical nonsense is of course ignored. The greater skepticism of Whites is countered by the greater imagination and grandiloquence of their magic men. Their evangelists are enrapturing and the Bible has intriguing tales.

Judeo-Christian organizations are larger than Chinese religious organizations, but this is because Chinese religion is far more diffused,² the Chinese government has persistently restricted them,³ and because J-C organizations are social, moral, charitable, and political enterprises with proselytic zeal, unlike the Chinese.⁴ The effort J-Cs invest in entreating Yahweh for magical benefaction and their expectation of such are difficult to measure, because their many reasons for ‘church-going’ are difficult to disentangle. The J-Cs I know aren’t expecting a windfall from Yahweh any time soon, and don’t bother asking for one. Nor do they live in fear of the Devil, nor are they eager to enter the pearly gates.

C. Chinese religions and superstitions are more extensive and difficult to swallow.

With Buddhism and Taoism, Chinese are promised similar goodies as Christians, such as an afterlife and small miracles.¹ The Chinese with their lack of concern for contradictions tend to mix Buddhism and Taoism together with Confucianism.² But Chinese religiosity extends far beyond the primary religions into a broad miscellany of superstitions.³ Chinese believe in many deities, such as the Jade Emperor and his vast retinue of local gods,⁴ a kitchen god for each home (who makes yearly reports on a family’s conduct), door gods, a toilet god, and gods of wealth;⁵ along with deified people including family patriarchs, sages, martyrs, and founders of trade guilds.⁶ Those who passed imperial examinations were regarded as incarnations of star gods.⁷ Chinese worship goofy animal gods such as a monkey, a fox, a weasel, a hedgehog, a snake, and a rat.⁸ The Chinese are also animists, attributing personalities to natural entities such as the sun and moon, rain, mountains, and rivers.⁹ The Chinese countryside teems with temples where deities are given their due offerings.¹⁰

D. Superstition deeply permeates Chinese people’s everyday activities.

Chinese are big on magical practices such as astrology and divination, fortune-telling, geomancy, magic medicine, and a wide variety of petty superstitions. Some Whites have believed in astrology, but the Chinese made it a government-run enterprise and carried it into modern times.¹ Chinese believe that unusual astronomical phenomena are signals (portents) from deities on how rulers are performing, and that natural disasters such as earthquakes and droughts are consequences of official misconduct.² China’s calendars and almanacs are based on astrology, which Chinese use to check for marriage compatibility and auspicious times to have sex, conduct business, schedule burials, and so on.³ Fortune-telling is big business in China, coming in many forms beyond astrology, including face and palm reading and shaking of fortune sticks and bamboo blocks.⁴ Fortune-tellers are highly respected, and advise businessmen on important investment decisions.⁵ Another big business in China is geomancy (Feng Shui), which informs the Chinese where to site and how to arrange buildings, homes, and grave sites, to bring about a ‘positive qi energy flow’.⁶ Building a home that faces north, or blocking the qi flow through the front yard, would bring ruin to your family.

E. Superstition even pervades Chinese medicine.

When someone gets sick, Judeo-Christian Whites may close their eyes and beg Yahweh to help, but that is the extent of their hopes for magical intervention. The Chinese, along with appeals to their gods, developed a whole system of quackery to handle the sick, called Traditional Chinese Medicine, which remains popular today. TCM is based on Yin-Yang, the Five Elements, Meridian channels that transport qi energy through the body, and other sorts of hocus pocus.¹ A TCM diagnosis is made by examining the face and tongue, parts of which ‘correspond’ to body organs via the qi channels, as well as pulse-points, odors, and other superficial signs.² Emotions similarly correspond to body parts.³ The prescription will be a random concoction of exotic plant and animal parts, nearly all of them ineffectual and some toxic.⁴ Acupuncture, also based on qi energy channels, gets a lot of positive Leftist press, but studies find it no more effective in reducing pain than placebo.⁵ Chinese tend to regard physical deformities and psychological problems as forms of supernatural punishment, and tend to fear and avoid afflicted persons.⁶

F. Chinese take superstitious luck far more seriously than do Whites.

While Whites have a few odd superstitions that only a handful take seriously, such as black cats and the number 13, superstitions and lucky charms are innumerable and taken very seriously in China.¹ Chinese take pains to get lucky #8’s in personal numbers such as phone numbers, addresses, and license plates, and strive equally hard to avoid #4’s. The Beijing Olympics opened on 8/8/08 at 8:08:08pm local time, and many airline route numbers with multiple 8’s are reserved for China.² Lucky color red is seen everywhere.³ The word for fish sounds like the word for surplus, so fish are lucky.⁴ Since good luck enters a home or shop through the front door, Chinese sweep inward and remove the dirt out the back.⁵ Concerned about how dead relatives are making do, Chinese burn great quantities of ‘ghost money’ (Joss paper) to keep them in cash.⁶ Many Chinese still carefully avoid women believed to be witches.⁷ Ghosts are widely feared and precautions are taken to avoid them, such as not clipping your nails at night.⁸ There are so many taboos on sex (leading to miscarriages, birth defects, etc.) that only about a hundred days of the year are considered auspicious for it.⁹

IV-7. Gambling and carelessness.

Similarly as the Chinese optimistically ignore do