The Chinese I posted this one hour ago-but somehow it was deleted, so a second go around.... The question was simple: if southeast Asians cluster with south Chinese, while north Chinese cluster with Japanese and Koreans, why the high IQ values for Taiwan and Hong Kong? First, these two groups are genetically "south Chinese." Hong Kong is a Cantonese city, while 90% of Taiwanese trace their ancestry to the coastal province of Fujian to the west of their nation within the last 300 years. 10% of Taiwanese are "mainlanders," of various provenance, while a minority of the residents of Hong Kong are non-Cantonese (much of Shanghai's entrepreneurial class relocated to Hong Kong). That being said, a thesis that holds that southeast Asians have lower IQs than northeast Asians, and has the south Chinese clustering with the latter, would predict lower IQs for south China than north China. The fact is that the Chinese Diaspora is overwhelmingly south Chinese (southeast Asia, the United States, etc.) and these are characterized by dynamic economically productive individuals. One could assert that the Diaspora is not representative-that selective immigration is causing the high IQs of south Chinese abroad, as well as Hong Kong and Taiwan. But the fact is that most Chinese did not go abroad to become businessmen and professionals, rather they were hired labor. The majority (men) returned after they had accrued sufficient funds to elevate their status in the homeland. Who remained? Perhaps those who had not accumulated as much status and wealth. I don't honestly know the raw intellectual capital of these immigrants, but the United States did not practice selective immigration in the late 19th century like Canada today, vetting for education and talent. The IQ of American whites maps closely to their root populations in Europe, and likewise Asian Americans. One could argue that different selective pressures transformed the southeast Asian or south Chinese population, despite their genetic closeness. Dysgenesis or IQ elevation through the Chinese scholarly system of exams may be candidates. But these are highly speculative, and Vietnam and Thailand were not far behind China proper in terms of political development (especially south China). Both peoples in fact derive from the south Chinese substrate-with the "Dai" ethnic group of southern China the remnants of the Thai nation. Historically I think it is likely that the south Chinese, especially the speakers of dialects, are not genetically the same as other Han, and might be Sinicized Vietnamese and Thai (or their equivalents). I have read that the dialects have traces that indicate that their brand of Chinese has been grafted upon a non-Chinese substrate. Parts of south China, such as Yunnan, actually are dominated by the Mandarin dialect. Why are Guangdong and its affinal provinces so different? Likely because the density of the indigenous population was so high that the Chinese migrants could not impose their language without transforming it within the pre-Chinese matrix. The fact is that Hong Kong and Taiwan are advanced technological societies. Even Thailand, the most advanced of the mainland southeast Asian nations, can not compare. I am not one who says that the Lynn-Flynn Effect can cause enormous changes and explain differences between all ethnic groups and societies, but neither am I an absolutist at the other end. I will be interesting for instance to see how the Philippines and Indonesia develop. Both are "Malay" genetic stock (as opposed to mainland southeast Asians who are more explicitly Mongoloid), but have very different cultures because of history (the Spanish halted the inevitable Islamicization of the Philippines-when they arrived, Muslim merchants were in evidence in Manila Bay). Update: Had dinner with a Vietnamese friend, he thinks Cantonese and Vietnamese look different, but more similar to each other than they are to Koreans or north Chinese. Update on previous post: Here is the text of the previous post that seems to have reappeared.... Southeast Asians, Northeast Asians and Chinese Illuminating post on the message board:

I wanted to know whether people from Taiwan(not aboriginal) and Hong Kong are considered North East Asian or South East Asian. Cavalli-Sforza indicates that, genetically, they are closer to South East Asians, but in terms of IQ and physical features they resemble North East Asian. Prof. Rushton is skeptical in regards to Cavalli-Sforza's South East Asian - North East Asian data. It seems odd people from Taiwan and Hong Kong would cluster genetically around South East Asians but achieve IQ scores on par with North East Asians. the_alpha_male28

90% of people in Taiwan trace their ancestry to the costal province of Fujian across the straits from Taiwan, so they would likely classify as south Chinese. Hong Kong is a Cantonese city-quintessentially south Chinese. In addition, the Chinese Diaspora, until recent times, was almost all south Chinese [1]. Even today, the Chinese of southeast Asia trace their ancestry to various regions of south China, or are Hakkas. I have read that the south Chinese dialects are spoken in a manner that indicates there was grafting onto a non-Chinese linguistic substrate [2]. The Vietnamese and Thai people in addition have had a presence (and the Thai do even today, as the Dai) in south China. From my reading of history, it seems most of the massive migration during the interregnum between the Han and the Sui/Tang (~300 to ~ 600) stimulated by barbarian conquest of the north was to the Yangtze river valley, rather than the coastal south (someone can correct me on this). But regions of the inland south like like Yunnan do speak Mandarin, so the fact that Cantonese and the other dialects still exist (and are de facto separate languages) indicates a pervasive indigenous presence that could not be absorbed or assimilated by migrants. Let me also add that the distinction between "north Chinese" and "south Chinese" is confused by the fact that after ~600 and after ~1200 (both periods of barbarian domination in the north of China) Chinese from the Yangtze region and further south resettled depopulated areas of the north. In addition-the barbarian genetic contribution to the remaining northern population was likely non-trivial (especially through the male line-even the Tang emperors had non-Han ancestry for instance, a partial reason for their affinity for horses). I would like input from those who know Chinese people personally as to whether there is a noticeable phenotype difference between the two groups. And what is there relationship to southeast Asians? [1] Political refugees and elite immigration to the West likely has a higher portion of north Chinese from the Yellow River plain. On the other hand, many American "Mandarin speakers"-are probably Taiwanese who are of Fujianese-south Chinese-extraction. [2] The same can be said of many "Indo-Aryan" languages of north, west and east India, they "sound" like Indo-European spoken by non-Indo-Europeans. Of course, these examples are endless-French is Latin spoken with a Celtic accent, etc. etc.