Alt Left: Anatomy of a Chinese Stereotype: Lack of Creativity and Inventiveness

Lack of Creativity and Inventiveness

 

Chinese are very inventive. They are much more inventive than we thought they were. This idea that they lack creativity and only copy others but never invent is nonsense.

Of course they copy and even shameless steal from the inventions of others in order to gain that expertise and manufacture that product. But left on their own, I do not think the Chinese are any less creative than Jews, and Jews are probably one of the most creative and inventive races on Earth.

Here the Chinese seem to differ from the Jews, as the Jews are creative in many ways, particularly literature, poetry, fiction, and nonfiction. The Jewish brain is very heavily weighted towards verbal skills, while it is relatively weak in math and science (other than one-offs like Einstein). The Jewish verbal IQ is said to be an unbelievable 125. Any race with a verbal IQ that high will out-compete any other race they are competing with, and of course, the Jews do just that.

The Chinese brain on the other hand, is wired towards science and math while being comparatively weak in verbal skills. Note the lack of major novelists coming out of China. Okay, we have Mao Yan. Off the tip of your tongue, anything else?

3 thoughts on “Alt Left: Anatomy of a Chinese Stereotype: Lack of Creativity and Inventiveness”

  1. For me it seems they are comparable to blacks when it comes to creativity. They are capable of being above avarage but rarely lead excelence or genius. When their populations are big like they are today they will produce many outliers.

    Indians/pakistanies, and japanese beat this afro-asiatic tendency, becuase of their admixture from nordic populations (the jomon and indo-europeans, jomons evolving in european like climate). They have significantly more geniuses than other asians, but not more above avarage people (becuase of smaller brains?) (less human capital more culture).

    Theres a strand of north chinese people, whom have elongated skulls, smaller jaws and a median smaller cranial capacity than that of your avarage chinese, slimmer noses, more nordic, and i suspect also follow this pattern of more culture less human capital, becuase of both geographical and (previously mentioned) biological reasons. These people are the ancestors of koreans, and an large share of the yayoi immigrants in japan. Their origins most likely come from the northern parts of the yellow ocean. They probably comprise around 8% of the chinese population. These are one of the tallest populations in asia (but not as tall as the manchus and mongolians).

    This mao yan individual you mentioned seemes to have the trait of an elongated skull, despite comming from hunnan province:
    http://www.pek-arts.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/MAO-YAN-BIO-PIC.jpg

    1. Jomons are not Indo-Europeans. Jomons are ancient Asians and they are actually Australoids, like Aborigines.

      Every population is going to have the same % of above average people IQ-wise. Think about it. Those Chinese are not really Nordic at all. They don’t have any Caucasian in them. They’re just more related to those Jomon-type ancient Asian Australoid types.

      What is a Manchu? A Manchurian?

      1. “Jomon and indo-europeans, jomons evolving in european like climate”

        I do consider them different, which is why I said “and”. But i also mentioned that they had the similarity of evolving in northern/taiga climates, thus giving them the nordic traits. The same follows with the strand of chinese, sure, they are not european, but they got some of that that makes europe unique, the neanderthal natural selection. Also the strand of chinese mentioned are not the desendants of jomon.

        “A Manchurian?”
        Yes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *