Comments on: Thomas Friedman: Brains vs. Language

By: kennteoh

kennteoh — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:38:29 +0000

" Is it harder for Western language person to learn to read Chinese, than for a Chinese person to learn English?"

Either way is tremendously difficult. Although in my personal experience, I have encountered far more Mainland Chinese who have managed to acquire a reasonable degree of proficiency in English (or another Indo-european language) than the other way round.

The vast majority of Chinese-language graduates from Western universities do not possess the level of literacy required to read a newspaper. Or most street signs, for that matter. Their speaking and listening ability is generally pretty appalling as well.

This does not bode well for the future of interactions between China and the West - there is already a terrible dearth of Western linguists who possess an adequate level of Chinese language proficiency.

By: rememberThe80's

rememberThe80's — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:30:00 +0000

Good point pconroy. I also remember the late 80′s when some people were saying that success in business in the 90′s would require fluency in Japanese. In fact I knew one clueless but condescending girl who was going to major in Japanese.

The internet has pretty much made english the de facto language of technology – and business. I think that English dominance of the internet will only grow – even if there is some sort of European grass roots backlash against English. India (like most developing countries) sees English as a language of the elite and educated. I don’t see a backlash happening there.

A question to the linguists out there. Is it harder for Western language person to learn to read Chinese, than for a Chinese person to learn English? I have heard that one must understand a couple thousand chinese characters in order to read a newspaper in china.

By: pconroy

pconroy — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:39:23 +0000

Jason,

That article is hilarious, as I for one remember when many, many people were flocking to learn Japanese, as they were to become our new masters, due to their hyper-efficiency, quality control and advanced manufacturing techniques.

What many of those who rushed to learn Japanese failed to ponder was that the Japanese were merely the first to widely put into place, techniques developed in the West. Once they were put into place more widely in the West, the Japanese edge was gone. Today Japan is suffering from 10+ years of stagflation, with no end in sight. Those who learned Japanese at the time will get to practice it as tourists.

I'm not saying that this will be the same for those rushing to learn Chinese, as China is at a vastly different stage of economic development than Japan is or was then. However English is firmly the language of IT, even in France all techies use English terms for everything, avoiding the artifical ones constructed by the French language academy.

By: billybob

billybob — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 05:17:30 +0000

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=79046

By: Jason Malloy

Jason Malloy — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 04:51:50 +0000

The "It" Language: China's growing influence drives demand for classes:

"Steve Smith, a business development manager for IBM, has a sure-fire way to give his career a boost--learning to speak Chinese.

"We know that it's going to be a big part of our lives in a way that it has not been before," said Smith, 50, who has studied the language for four years at the College of DuPage in Glen Ellyn.

Mandarin Chinese, the most widely spoken form of the language, has become the new "it" language among students, business executives and others trying to gain increasingly useful career and life skills, experts say. Although instructors say the bulk of their students are professionals like Smith, kids from kindergarten to college are studying the language"

By: kennteoh

kennteoh — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:08:47 +0000

"Just because they are non-English-speaking it doesn't mean they are poor. For the first generation making money always takes precedence over scholarship, but for the second generation academic achievement takes center stage."

Totally accurate.

The average level of educational attainment for my grandfather's generation, most of whom were born and raised in China, was high-school-level. They moved to Australia and earned huge sums of money running general stores in small country towns. This was a very common thing for Chinese families to do during the mid-20th century.

Almost all of the subsequent generation entered academia or the medical and legal professions. While they are all relatively prosperous, they are far less affluent than the generation that preceded them (all of whose money was appropriated by a much maligned and resented black sheep, who now owns several shopping malls in outer Sydney).

That being said, I've heard that recent Fukkienese immigrants to the US and Europe tend to be very poor, and cluster in ghettos more redolent of overseas Chinese communities from the 19th and early 20th century.

By: gbloco

gbloco — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:14:29 +0000

“Yet Fujianese appear to make up the largest proportion of poor, non-English-speaking Chinatown-dwelling immigrants in the United States.”

Just because they are non-English-speaking it doesn’t mean they are poor. For the first generation making money always takes precedence over scholarship, but for the second generation academic achievement takes center stage.

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:39:35 +0000

“People from Fujian and Canton also enjoy a strong reputation as businessmen and scholars in other provinces.”

Yet Fujianese appear to make up the largest proportion of poor, non-English-speaking Chinatown-dwelling immigrants in the United States.

By: razib

razib — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:06:21 +0000

I read (Razib can probably provided further confirmation or insight) that the paternal ancestry of Southen Chinese is mainly derived from the north, while their maternal ancestry is much more heterogenous, reflecting the fact that many immigrants to the south would have been bachelors who intermarried.

paternal and maternal lineages need to reflect full genomic ancestry (selection). but in any case, generalizing about hundreds of millions of south chinese is hard. if i had to give one answer i would probably assert that there was male mediate gene flow from north china on top of an indigenous substrate. i've read some historical literature which though points out that particular practices adhered to by peoples of south china (for example, the elite of guandong) are quite clearly lineally descended from the practices of the pre-han people in the region (and have cognates among highlanders). cavalli-sforza in 1994 displayed cladograms which put south chinese clustered with southeast asians rather than north chinese and northeast asians.

I'm assuming/guessing Northern Chinese probably have a fair amount of Altaic/Tungusic ancestry, given repeated invasions by steepes nomads, that served as the compelling factor for migration to the South.

the numbers of the nomads was always very small in comparison to the han substrate. and unlike the south chinese case there wasn't as persistent an influx outsiders into the local population (the migration rate was lower).

By: kennteoh

kennteoh — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:42:16 +0000

“Not this generation so much, but the next. Remember Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, once one need is satisfied, the next higher one becomes important etc.”

My impression is that most Chinese favour gradual evolution towards a more liberal, pluralistic political model. So if the next generation is likely to make demands for greater political freedom, it’s something they’re not too worried about at the moment – things will most likely have changed by that stage.

They always point to the catastrophe that occurred in Russia following rapid introduction of representative democracy and free-market reforms.

By: kennteoh@hotmail.com

kennteoh@hotmail.com — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:37:48 +0000

"The fact is most Chinese think that southerners are smarter."

I think you're probably right on that point. I've heard a lot of Chinese express this view. They often refer to people from particular cities or languages groups who are renowned for economic and academic success as being the "Jews of China" - I've heard both the Hakka and people from Wenzhou (the principal source of Chinese migration to many parts of the EU) referred to as "the Jews of China". People from Fujian and Canton also enjoy a strong reputation as businessmen and scholars in other provinces.

As regards differences between Northerners and Southerners - I'm no expert, but I recall a post on this site concerning the demic diffusion of Han culture. During the Han Dynasty, people south of the Yangtze were not ethnically Chinese (although places like the kingdoms of Yue and Wu, located in modern day Jiangsu and Zhejiang, were already heavily Sinicized).

A current issue of contention for some is whether or not Southern Chinese are the descendants of the indigenous people, who were probably Austroasiatic and Austronesian, or the descendants of immigrants from the Yellow River basin.

I'm neither a geneticist nor a Sinologist so take whatever I have to say with a grain of salt. I read (Razib can probably provided further confirmation or insight) that the paternal ancestry of Southen Chinese is mainly derived from the north, while their maternal ancestry is much more heterogenous, reflecting the fact that many immigrants to the south would have been bachelors who intermarried.

The same pattern, funnily enough, is reflected in Taiwan, where the Taiwanese (ethnic Chinese who migrated centuries ago ) say that "we have Han forefathers, but no Han foremothers". They are the descendants of Han bachelor immigrants and indigenous women.

I'm assuming/guessing Northern Chinese probably have a fair amount of Altaic/Tungusic ancestry, given repeated invasions by steepes nomads, that served as the compelling factor for migration to the South.

By: gbloco

gbloco — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:46:56 +0000

kennteoh

I've been in China for a year now. I can order in a restaurant in Chinese, but I certainly can't read the menu (my business partner speaks perfect mandarin, but also cannot read).

I have argued with pconroy on the supposed north-south IQ divide. No doubt he is probably being deliberately provocative, but has also made us think.

The fact is most Chinese think that southerners are smarter.

If there is an IQ difference how could it be? I took a look at province-by-province university exam results and there is no glaring difference between south and the central zone (although dongbei and west are behind).

Europe certainly has more variation in phenotype, yet IQ is remarkable constant over the continent. Why should the idea of conquering barbarians lowering IQs and pushing smarter populations to the peripheries apply to China and not Europe?

If anything the central regions have always placed more emphasis on narrow educational achievement in the mandarin tradition than the coast. Many of the top universities are in underperforming towns like Wuhan and Nanjing.

In fact for most Chinese smart has nothing to do with IQ at all and everything to do with money and it is on this measure that the sourtherners do best. Chinese always joke that the nong ming (farmer) is the boss and the PHD the employee. Or that educated people have no dan zi (balls).

By: Leviathan

Leviathan — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:08:20 +0000

P Conroy,
I was trying to say that in terms of economic power, India aims to equal China, China aims to equal America.

Their goals speak volumes about their current economic position.

By: pconroy

pconroy — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:42:30 +0000

Leviathan wrote:
China wants to be the next America, India wants to be the next China.

I don't agree with either of these statements.
China will never be the US, they are evolving into a great economic power, but hardly into one like the US.
India is more like the US in many ways, with democracy hiding huge gaps in society, between a multitude of different groups.

In terms of software and BPO, China is definately late to the table and trying to play catchup with India.

I think that we are seeing the start of both China and India seeing that they can benefit from more cooperation between themselves.

By: pconroy

pconroy — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:43:35 +0000

kennteoh wrote:
PConroy, they really don't give a shit, as long as they can make money and buy what they want.

Not this generation so much, but the next. Remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs, once one need is satisfied, the next higher one becomes important etc.

So once coastal Chinese have 2 SUV's and a 4 bedroom house, next they will demand elected officials.

By: Jason Malloy

Jason Malloy — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:29:43 +0000

No, that was pconroy, who said that all IQ data from China must be disregarded completely regardless of the results or circumstances under which it was collected.

I guess Bill Gates should disregard his best research facility, as his method for creating it was illegitimate.

By: Markus Barca

Markus Barca — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:12:45 +0000

Didn’t Jason Malloy mention a few threads back about how Chinese real IQ may be lower than we commonly think because of the Chinese government’s reluctance to share that sort of information? I don’t remember the thread, and I can’t search the Haloscan archives (or can I?).

Is there any more information on that?

By: Less Than Zero

Less Than Zero — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:01:49 +0000

surely once you reach a certain level of IQ other factors determine success

Many to most famous inventors and creative types I've heard of did not attend top universities or provide evidence of IQ's more than 2 deviations past the norm.

Clearly the distinct advantages of high IQ's progressively diminish as scores rise over 125 or so. Beyond that, other factors like people skills, motivation, and innovation (thinking outside the box) play ever larger roles.

but could Microsoft really have done better? (recruiting for creativity)

Tricky skill, that. Pattern recognition tests are a start, though they don't ask for anything innovative. Essay type answers minimaly require creation of an essay, but are open to BS artists.

It may sound silly, but for an engineering firm testing for creativity, perhaps giving applicants a set of Lego's, or similar building toys, and asking them to build something new without plans would be a good start.

Can't remember if I heard about a company actually testing recruits with Lego's, but maybe...

By: razib

razib — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:01:49 +0000

Given that a large fraction of both Indian and Chinese population have recently immigrated are you saying the Indians are given IQ tests at the airport but the Chinese are just waved in?

i know a lot about the chinese diaspora. ie; its predominantly fujian, guandong and hakka origins, etc. yes, there is selection biasing. i'm just saying, chinese are a sure thing. chinese never need special pleading, they make malaysia run, have turned singapore into a first world nation at the equator, etc. etc. the indians who are not selection biased for education, the indentured laborers of guyana, mauritius and trinidad have done decently considering their deprived socioeconomic origins (in guyana and trinidad they dominate the private sectors), but they have not made those states flower. malaysia is a good comparison point i think. of course, one could argue that if one had taken peasants from north china plain instead of enterprising fujianese, things might have been different in malaysia, etc. etc. but again, for the brown diaspora excuses must be made. not so for the chinese (north chinese peasants are going to dominate manchuria).

this is not to say that i believe that 80 is the "inherent" IQ of south asia anymore than i believe parts of sub-saharan africa are around 65. but if you want me to bet money on china vs. india, china is a sure thing. even if you look at the vital stats like literacy india is blown away by china. there are surely culturalist non-innate reasons for this, but culture tends to influence genetics via the baldwin effect.

in any case, kerala might be a good test for measuring south asia's innate aptitude because gross proverty and cretinism is lacking there, and literacy rate is high, but i suspect there is a lot more population substructure there and gross generalizations elide over a lot of detail. sikhs and mirpuris in britain might be a good assay for the impact of culture since i have been told these two groups (genetically the same basically, speaking the same language, etc.) were not very selection biased but the sikhs have "fit in" far better in england than the mirpuris (the "pakistanis" you read about).

but again, i don't want to go into the detail, in the final estimation, bet on the yellow over the brown if you couldn't pick a sector.

p.s. i expect the western media will fixate on india a lot in the near future no matter what china does because i don't think the chinese are going to produce the same sort of literary and intellectual output in english as india does for at least another generation (ie; rushdie, roy and so on).

By: simon

simon — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 07:05:34 +0000

IQ has a lot to do with environment and education.
China has a history of rapid economic expansion followed by collapse.