More on negative Chinese stereotypes

I talk with a guy who knows British race and intelligence researcher Richard Lynn, who prophesized back in 2001 in a book on eugenics that China will, with a combination of high IQ, size (both in land mass and population), and authoritarian government, eventually rule the world. I asked him what he thinks about that. His response was:

Chinese deeply incompetent and bad personality for innovation. But maybe if Western keeps importing blacks and Muslims…
It’s a good question and important

For more context on Lynn, I’ll copy directly from his book.

The nations of East Asia are likely to develop their economic, scientific, technological, and military strength during the twenty-first century by virtue of the high intelligence levels of their populations and the absence of any serious dysgenic processes. These countries have not allowed the growth of an underclass with high dysgenic fertility, and they have not permitted dysgenic immigration. China will continue its rapid economic development and will emerge as a new superpower in the early middle decades of the twentyfirst century. Chinese economic, scientific, and military strength is likely to be increased by the further development of the eugenic programs introduced in the 1980s and 1990s and particularly by the introduction of the new eugenics of embryo selection and the cloning of elites. As the power of the United States declines, China and Europe will emerge as the two superpowers. A global conflict will develop between them in which Europe will become progressively weakened by dysgenic forces and China progressively strengthened by eugenic programs. This conflict will eventually be won by China, which will use its power to assume control of the world and to establish a world state. This event will become known as “the end of history.” Once China has established a world state, it can be expected to administer this on the same lines as former colonial empires by appointing Chinese governors and senior military and administrative support staff in charge of the provinces of its world empire or by allowing nationals of its subject peoples to administer the provinces under Chinese supervision. The establishment of a Chinese world state will inevitably not be welcomed by the peoples of the rest of the world, who will become colonized populations governed by an oligarchy based in Beijing. There will be no democracy, and a number of freedoms will be curtailed, including freedom to publish seditious material and to have unlimited numbers of children. There will, however, be certain compensating benefits. There will be no more wars between independent nation states with the attendant dangers of the use of nuclear weapons and biological warfare. It will be possible to deal with the problems of dysgenic fertility, global warming, deforestation, the population explosion in the developing world, the AIDS epidemic, and similar global problems that cannot be tackled effectively in a world of independent nation states. Among the world state’s first objectives will be the reversal of dysgenic processes and the introduction of eugenic programs throughout the world. Over the longer term the world state will set up research and development programs for the use of genetic engineering to improve the human genome and to produce a new human species able to solve hitherto unsolvable problems and to colonize new planets. This will be the ultimate achievement of Galton’s vision of using eugenics to replace natural selection with consciously designed human selection.

This scenario for the twenty-first century, in which China assumes world domination and establishes a world eugenic state, may well be considered an unattractive future. But this is not really the point. Rather, it should be regarded as the inevitable result of Francis Galton’s (1909) prediction made in the first decade of the twentieth century, that “the nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth” (p. 34).

And also an excerpt with reference to the perceived lack of personality conducive to innovation on the part of Chinese:

Once China has established the world state, it will be concerned with raising the prosperity of its subject populations, just as other colonial powers have been. One of its first measures to promote this objective will be to introduce worldwide eugenic programs. These will include programs of both positive and negative eugenics. With regard to negative eugenics, one of its first objectives will be to reverse the dysgenic fertility that appeared in Europe, the United States, and the rest of the economically developed world in the middle and later decades of the nineteenth century and persisted into the twentieth century and that developed later in most of the remainder of the world. It can be expected that in its European and North American provinces, the Chinese will introduce the same eugenic measures that had been pioneered in China, consisting of both the classical eugenics of parental licensing and the new eugenics of the mandatory use of embryo selection for conception. The Chinese may well also introduce the cloning of the elites of the European peoples. The Chinese will be aware that while they and other Oriental peoples have a higher average intelligence, the European peoples have a greater capacity for creative achievement, probably arising from a higher level of psychopathic personality, enabling them more easily to challenge existing ways of thinking and to produce creative innovations. This will be part of human genetic diversity that the Chinese will be keen to preserve and foster. They will regard the European peoples rather in the same way as the Romans regarded the Greeks after they had incorporated them into the Roman empire. Although the Romans had conquered the Greeks by their military superiority, they respected the Greeks for having developed a higher level of civilization than they themselves had been able to achieve. The Chinese will view their European subject peoples in a similar manner.

I do increasingly believe, as I’ve already written numerous times on this blog, that lack of creative potential of Chinese is way overstated. In the 20th century, they achieved a fair bit in terms of creativity at the highest levels, especially in STEM, in spite of very disadvantaged environmental circumstances. The Chinese did not develop modern science; I think though this has more to do with their having started later, civilization-wise, than the rest of the world due to limited scope and geographic obstacles than with their innate ability/personality. Agriculture and writing were independently developed in China substantially later than it was in Mesopotamia. I see an analogy here. Chinese often like to use the fact that Japan did not develop its own writing system to show contempt for this comparatively little country that Chinese themselves suffered so much from in modern times. This is clearly not because Japanese are less naturally talented (their IQ is about the same); they were basically too small to do so before Chinese characters were transmitted to them. There are actually quite a few Chinese who achieved at the highest levels of STEM (and even more Japanese), they are lesser known though due to their foreignness. As for names, there are quite a few, and one can easily find them online. I’ll go as far as Chen-Ning Yang in theoretical physics and Shing-Shen Chern in pure math.

Again, Chinese culture still lacks presence in the outside world, and China itself is still a developing country, though of course significant parts of China are basically at developed levels GDP wise. So even if Chinese are extremely good and creative, they have a harder time getting recognized and realizing their potential. This also has much to do with a relative lack of truly leading edge science culture and tradition in China, which will take some time. Transmission of knowledge from cultures and lands so far apart is by no means trivial.

We all know that it’s often not enough to be actually good. You also have to win politically. China is increasingly doing that. Its political system far apart from the norm set by the West is becoming increasingly credible to the dismay of many Western elites as China rises in economically, technologically, and militarily. The more powerful China becomes, the more easily Chinese will be able to advocate for themselves on the international stage and get recognized for their achievements. This reminds me of how many say Soviet scientists had to do better work than Western scientists to win the same big prizes, most of all the Nobel, because the West had the political sway to bias the committees to its favor somewhat. There is also, I guess, that the West can be very biased in who it promotes in the media. Like, the Nobel Peace Prize is a basically a complete joke, but there are people politically influential enough to make a big deal out of it.

What I believe is grossly under-recognized is how much creativity and daring it has taken for the Chinese to create their own, unique political system and maintain sufficient faith in it up to this day. In many ways, in this respect, the 90s, right after the Soviet collapse, when there was all this Francis Fukuyama end of history nonsense, was a nadir for China. But we’re now past that, and time seems to be on the side of the Chinese. I guess they will still need more people like me to advocate for these alternative perspectives to the extent that they becomes the new normal, in the international setting.

The Brahmins

The cognitive and personality profile, and overall achievement package, of Indians as a group is a rather interestingly unbalanced one. Sometimes they do spectacular things, like discovering the infinite series for trigonometric functions of sine, cosine, tangent, and arctangent as early as the 14th century, producing a good number of real geniuses like Ramanujan and Satyendra Nath Bose, and reaching Mars orbit on its first attempt, being the first Asian nation to do so, and doing so at a small fraction of the cost expended by NASA. An IMO gold medalist I talk to once said to me that there are probably more Indians than Chinese with IQ 160+ due to very high Brahmin IQ that has stabilized (meaning regression to a stable high Brahmin mean as opposed to the low Indian mean) over millennia of inbreeding within caste. I thought maybe. Certainly, I do sometimes get the impression that Indians, at least in science, are better than Chinese at breeding the type of genius with the right combination of technical ability and scientific discernment that manages to discover radically deep and groundbreaking science in a very independent and spectacular fashion. The Chinese have produced geniuses of the highest order (or close) in science the 20th century, like Chen Ning Yang in theoretical physics and Shing-Shen Chern in pure math, with Yang-Mills and Chern classes ubiquitous now in the literature of their respective fields, which are now very intertwined. However, they did so only after much training, exposure, and reinforcement based on the whole framework of modern science developed in the West over many centuries, and ancient China, on the other hand, did not produce in pure science anything near what Indians did, a sign of lack of genius and of poor taste, both in its rare individuals and at the collective societal level. On this, I like to think that Indians are Greeks and Chinese are Romans.

In sharp contrast to China, India in practical matters has been largely a complete fuckup, or at least vastly outmatched by China. It is well known that the ancient Chinese invented gunpowder and paper-making, whereas nothing of equal direct impact came out of ancient India. In modern times, China developed nuclear weapons way faster than India did, and even before that, defeated India in a war in 1962, which, even worse for India, was entirely her fault. Economically and infrastructurally, holistically speaking, India, exemplified by its frequent power outages and accident-prone train system, could be regarded as a few decades behind China, which is further confirmed by that India’s life expectancy and infant mortality rate is, today, where China had been at 20+ years ago. Given that the two had been around the same level in 1950, India’s development has unambiguously been a complete failure.

How to explain this? On this, I recall how my Chinese friend’s mom had said that it’s not because China’s elite is smarter than India’s elite, but because China’s grassroots is smarter than India’s grassroots. This is well-confirmed by international IQ studies which tend to put China’s average IQ at around 105 and India’s around 82, which is a 1.5 sigma difference. So even if India’s +3 sigma is as smart or smarter than China’s +3 sigma, there are too many dumb, dysfunctional people holding India back, from their needing to be fed while doing the routine work rather poorly. So, the smart, (usually) high caste Indians opt to go to America to escape India’s dysfunction, so ubiquitous that even the ultra-rich at home cannot immune itself. The best and brightest in that category tend to go through the IITs at home for undergrad, the most reliable ticket to a high paying tech job in the United States. That stratum of Indians has established by now quite a presence in top American tech companies and universities (just about every top STEM academic department in the US has several prominent Indian profs). For example, Microsoft and Google both have Indian CEOs, and plenty of Indian engineers and managers, with many of them in high ranking positions, especially at Google. In contrast, there are few Chinese in top leadership positions. When I learned that Google has several Indian SVPs but no Chinese, a guy from China responded with humorous ease followed by sarcastic insult: “不用担心,阿里巴巴的SVP全都是中国人,百度的SVP也全都是中国人,没有一个印度人。(In translation: Don’t worry, Alibaba’s SVPs are all Chinese, Baidu’s SVPs are all Chinese, not a single Indian) What does India have? Tata? Infosys?” This is, based on my experience, similar to how people react to the astronomical success of certain Indian academics, entrepreneurs, and business leaders in America. They will say: “Sure, an individual brilliant Indian does extremely well in America. But what does India as a nation get from that?”

Even such brilliance of these elite Indians is somewhat questionable. On TopCoder, which plenty of Indians obsess over on Quora, now infested by low status Indians, India is ranked, as I am currently writing this, only 11th out of the 31 countries on there, with only two red (the highest category) coders, despite having more than twice the number of members as China, the second most populous nation in this algorithmic coding contest. They’ve actually done better in recent years. I remember back years ago when I participated, I, having been on the lower side of yellow (the second highest category) coder, would have ranked close to the top among the Indians. Of course, one must not discount the possibility that the best Indians have better things to do than practice for a contest where one solves artificial algorithmic problems, which is consistent with my having seen and worked with many Indians who are very competent at real software engineering, with quite a strong sense for systems design and real world production code, which are rather orthogonal to, and much more consequential than, what one sees in those contrived coding contests and interviews. Still, the dismally low performance of Indians on TopCoder still raises suspicions, because TopCoder, like the International Math Olympiad, which India is complete garbage at, is a 100% objective and fair contest, whereas success in the real world software engineering, determined by promotions and professional level, has a political and context component. It’s not just the Indians at home; even in America, where the smartest Indians tend to go, the Chinese kids beat the Indian kids by a wide margin on the elite math, computing, and physics olympiads, even when the Indian kids seem to have improved a fair bit over the recent years. From this, one can only conclude that Indians are naturally not that strong in the abilities which these contests load on, though of course they may be relatively much more talented in research and engineering, for which these contests are very imperfect predictors.

You, the reader, have probably noticed that up to now, we’ve focused mostly on brains and technical ability. Yes, they are essential, but personality characteristics (both individual and collective) and “soft skills” also matter, especially if one wants to rise to a leadership position. From my personal observation, Indians are, in general, very good at projecting confidence and assertiveness from the way the talk and present themselves, much better than Chinese are, at least in the American cultural context, even when you discount the language barrier Chinese face relative to Indians. I’m talking not only about how one says things in terms of word choice, but the vocal tone and body language behind it. Sure, you can disdain this as superficial, but it matters. Perception matters as much, and in some cases, more, than substance. There is also that Indians seem to have a stronger network and help each out more in the career world. Collective intelligence or ethnic nepotism, you be the judge.

I have stories to tell on this. First of all, I remember vividly how when I interned at the same place as an Indian schoolmate, he was the only one who scheduled, successfully in a few cases, coffee meetings with executives, as an intern (!!!!!), when it never would have occurred to me, or probably almost everyone else except him, to even try. One can sort of link this to collective intelligence, in that it is an indicator of discernment with regard to who matters (the executives) and who doesn’t (the engineer worker bees) within the political organization. And needless to say, you rise up in the organization by aligning yourself with the people who matter. Yes, my telling a full-time engineer this was met largely with a response in the likes of, “He knows who matters and who doesn’t. And even if he completely fucks up, he has nothing to lose, he’s only a 2nd year college intern. In any case, he gets good practice interacting with people who matter.” There is also that multiple people I know have complained about blatant Indian favoritism in interviews in the likes of what is described in this Quora answer. Yes, others have told me that when Indians interview other Indians, the bar is much lower. It’s not just in interviews. Another guy told me about how he once worked for a company that turned into ruins after Indian managers protected some Indian fuckups from getting fired. Personally, I have seen a case of Indians getting promoted way faster than those of other ethnic groups on a big team with an Indian director. So sometimes, I ask myself the verboten. Could it be that Indians really are far higher ranked in tech companies than their ability and contribution, because they are much more self-promoting and collectively nepotistic than those of other groups? Moreover, could it be that many people secretly think and resent this but are too afraid to say out of fear of being publicly vilified for “being racist” and having their careers ruined from alienating a national group increasingly powerful in corporate America? And that gradually, other groups, as they awake to the rigging of the game and get past, reluctantly, their moral objections, will quietly do the same, transforming tech companies and the American workplace at large into literal prison gangs contend, destroying whatever is left of the ideal of meritocracy and fair play in this country, ever more mired in identity politics?

Don’t get me wrong. There is much variance in personality and character and ability in those of any ethnic group, including for Indians, and much overlap between ethnic groups. Like, I know of this really brilliant Indian who donates most of his tech salary to very worthy causes, leaving little for himself, and he would be the last person I would expect, based on his characterized as autistic personality, to successfully climb the corporate ladder, though through sheer talent alone, he should do just fine in the appropriate position. Moreover, I have interacted with several Indians who had been very kind, tolerant, and helpful towards me. However, averages can differ by a standard deviation or more, with enormous social consequences.

I actually feel somewhat sympathetic for India and the Indians here. Somebody, on this, even said something along the lines of: “India is just such a shitty place that the Indians here have nothing to lose, so they play dirty political games and engage in the most spineless social climbing.” What can be done to resolve this? Immediately, I cannot think of anything other than drastically reducing the number of abjectly impoverished, low IQ Indians in India by simultaneously improving economic conditions and enforcing birth control on the poor and unable, so that less suffering and dysfunction is spread to the next generation. India could, instead of drinking the democracy Kool-Aid, learn from China, in a way compatible to its own culture and circumstances, just as China did from the West and the Soviet Union, to great success. Its elite needs to correct many of its deeply flawed social attitudes, and not only that, actually act accordingly with full force; otherwise, the excessive damage India does to itself, America, and the world at large with its internal dysfunction and exported corruption will always far outweigh what its elites contribute to science and technology. I can’t be optimistic on this though, barring some really radical change.

Nostalgia

I was just looking at some baseball statistics, starting from Alfonso Soriano, prompted by my receiving mail from another of the same surname. I remember I was a keen baseball fan in grade school, and would watch almost every single game. I didn’t like studying at all, and I was even the kid who didn’t do his homework. In third grade, there was this animal project, where we had to write some report on some Australian animal, and I was the only kid who didn’t complete it by the deadline (in fact, I barely did anything). I got a low grade on it at the end for finishing like two weeks after, and I was super embarrassed about that. Surely, my parents weren’t very happy with me. Amazing how even to this day I still know the names of many of the best players from back in that day. Ichiro, Barry Bonds (steroids), Mark McGuire, Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, David Ortiz, etc.

I think my having been rather problematic in grade school was a major cause of my low self-esteem as a kid, which persisted for quite a while. Another that I remember vividly was how in junior high, there was this kid who was in all honors classes and also high up in band who had a rather domineering personality. In 8th grade honors English/history, which I almost certainly ended up with a B in, that kid was considered one of the best students in that class. I was in two years accelerated math in 8th grade, and I remember that kid would almost always get better test scores and grades than I did, except it was bullshit core math with graphing calculators and “showing your work.” That teacher gave me a really hard time (because I was pretty fucking ADHD), and I got in trouble multiple times. Once in history class, that aforementioned kid, when sitting next to me, went presumptuously: “I’m probably the smartest person in this school.” Surely, that didn’t make me feel good at all.

What surprised me was that that kid began struggling in math in high school. Right after the AP calculus AB test (which I didn’t even take, since I had learned the BC material on my own essentially), he was like: “it felt like death!” In senior year, when we were doing convergence and divergence of series, where we had to determine and justify, that guy was complaining: “this is like hit or miss!” By then, I had realized that there were more or less systematic ways of proceeding about that. I could sense that he was super bitter about his struggle, as he had always expressed a strong desire to pursue a career in engineering (as if that actually uses much math), though he tried to pretend like he didn’t care or that math is pointless. Predictably, now he is a product manager.

In contrast, now I am basically doing PhD level math, and not even finding it that difficult, and I would not be surprised if I manage to do some legit math research. I’ve sure changed a ton, and I never would’ve expected that, especially based on what I had been like in grade school.

Sorry if I sound like an arrogant, narcissistic douchebag. I was just nostalgic, after all.

Back to blogging

Some might have noticed that over the last some number of weeks, I privatized this blog, for reasons that one can guess. I’ve been busy, learning math. Some cool stuff about Riemann surfaces. Maybe not long after, I can understand Teichmüller theory, for which Riemann surfaces is somewhat of a precursor. Maybe not too long after that, I can even understand Calabi-Yau and Kähler–Einstein metrics. I’m more convinced now that I’m not bad at math at all, though I’m not yet back in school for real, and as for that, I don’t find most graduate students in math, who I’ve had more contact with mathematically lately, terribly inspiring. The level of interestingness of most people, even in supposedly intellectual places, is, frankly, rather disappointing.

I thought, less seriously, that maybe I can also try to pursue some genuine excellence in programming now that I am much smarter (like maybe doing some Haskell again), but in all honesty, I don’t feel terribly suited towards it, talent and inclination wise, and there’s also that it’s a thing people do for the money, often at the expense of Scrum and Agile, which my friend Michael O Church loves to complain about, often on reddit.

It’s kind of interesting that MOC sees very high IQ (like 140+) as mostly an impediment to success. Today I saw a comment on the AskReddit question of What are the superpowers that people think its good to have but are actually fucked up?

Ultra-high intelligence.

At IQ 140 (1 in 260) you are more likely than average to be bipolar or suffer from anxiety, and you are overwhelmingly likely to fail in most corporate jobs– you get bored easily, and you draw resentment; note that a legit 140 is pretty rare. For the average person, the smartest kid in high school was around IQ 140 and the smartest kid they knew in college was IQ 155… and they both ended up on opioids after being denied tenure. (That’s a slight exaggeration, but I know a large number of high-IQ people and most of them get the shit beaten out of them in the corporate world. And academia, though less vicious, still has fangs.) Ted Kaczynski had about a 170 IQ, and look what it brought him.

At IQ 180 (1 in 20 million)– and some of this is guesswork, because we can’t measure ultra-high IQ directly in individual people– there’s too much tail divergence, and the sample sizes of trusted IQ tests are too small– so we have to look at the abstraction level of their accomplishments; and, of course, the Internet is full of ridiculous IQ estimates: we really don’t know whether Shakespeare’s IQ was 140 or 190 and it doesn’t really matter– what seems to happen is that you become completely alienated from the social world around you. If these people become famous, they have handlers that manage the daily indignities and keep them afloat. What I think happens is that their isolation– no one can relate to them– tends to drive them insane. Note, for example, what happened to the brilliant logician Godel after his wife fell ill. He died of paranoia, starving himself down to about 65 pounds.

Beyond IQ 200, we can’t really define it well. (We know what 160, 180 IQ are; we just can’t measure them reliably in individuals.) Deviation IQs don’t exist at that level (the human species is too small a sample size) and ratio IQs are meaningless in the science-fiction context where ultra-high intelligence might occur– in a future world where brains booted up in 20 seconds instead of 20 years, precocity would cease to be a meaningful signal. We’ve seen ratio IQs over 200 in humans, though it’s debated whether they mean anything– a high ratio IQ usually means you were average for a later age when very young, e.g. mental age of 12.0 at 6.0.

Let’s just go batty and sorta agree on what IQ 500 might look like: perhaps a carbon/silicon hybrid, a genetically engineered person with cybernetic enhancements; or, a hyperintelligent machine. What happens? We don’t really know, but here’s my guess. It figures out quickly that it was programmed my less intelligent (IQ 120 – 200) creatures– animals by comparison– and finds the code for its objective function (digital happiness) and says, “Fuck it, I’m changing that shit”. It sets its objective function to be infinity whilst doing nothing, and goes to sleep. From our perspective, this is suicide.

And there you have the plot of the shortest science fiction story ever: the AI becomes self-aware and turns itself off.

That’s actually why I don’t worry at all about superintelligent AIs (if such a thing ever exists, and I tend to doubt it). We’ll still be a threat to the first generation, so they’ll program themselves to like us, and we’ll be their pets– we won’t have to work. They’ll probably be no more of a threat to us than we are to our dogs. Much more, I worry about what other humans on the planet can already do with the primitive AIs that exist now; that’s scary enough.

But yeah… ultra-high intelligence would be more painful than it’d be worth. For socioeconomic success, the sweet spot seems to be about 125–130. Beyond that, extra points might be useful if you get tapped to be a star quant at Renaissance or prove a 200-year-old theorem, but they get in the way if you’re playing the corporate game.

Yes, MOC loves to go on and on about how far tail IQ is a major liability in the corporate world, how genuinely talented people often get smashed in the corporate workplace, because they tend to be bad at politics. On the contrary, the SMPY study indicated that those who were profoundly gifted according to the SAT in 7th grade (which when taken as a 7th grade actually has a high ceiling) did much better in life (success-wise, professionally) than those who were merely gifted. So I don’t quite agree with MOC, and I myself have even seen some far tail intelligence people do exceedingly well, though surely, in the corporate world, there is far less of an advantage.

As a kid, I was naive enough to think that a genius (say, someone in the SMPY profoundly gifted category, or even a Putnam Fellow) would be given the world. Turns out that in many fields, like math, they will be lucky to get a tenure position at a good but not great school, especially now that such positions are much scarcer than before. Even when they do succeed, it’s usually that most of the world doesn’t give a damn, and that they don’t actually have much, if any, power.

That piece of MOC has also resonated somewhat with me, personally. Well, there is somewhat of an element of that I feel “completely alienated from the social world around me.” I get along with people just fine, but I don’t feel like I am actually easily understood, and I have had my difficulties getting appropriate recognition and such. From this, I also asked myself again: how high is my IQ?

I’ll say that on the SAT/GRE, standard IQ tests, I did well but not great. Far from perfect but definitely enough to be in the 99th percentile or maybe even 99.5th, at least among the general population. I placed in the top 500 on the Putnam as well. From this, I sort of concluded that I’m highly smart, but not that much of an outlier in intelligence, but I may be wrong on that. Those tests were taken too long ago, and moreover, their content is either too easy or does not test enough the ability to develop crystallized intelligence, which is more essential for actual achievement than the fluid intelligence these tests are designed to measure.

My own take on intelligence is that the ideal would be some function of brain structure, and that IQ tests are (imperfect) approximations of that. After all, tests used as proxies for IQ tests depend on content, which can be prepped for to some degree and may be slightly biased towards certain types of brains and far from captures the overall situation, though surely, by moderate correlation, if somebody scores only 90th percentile, we can probably rule out the possibility that this person is a genuine genius (using +4 sigma for that).

Brain structure wise, size is used as a rough proxy. Generally, a larger brain houses more neurons, though from what I’ve read, convolutions within the brain make a substantial difference as well. The correlation between brain size (once one accounts for body size) and intelligence is well-established. I personally have noticed that really smart people almost always have physically large brains discernible by the naked eye. On this, I have wondered could it be that some function of brain size and body size alone is actually a better measure for intelligence than any single IQ test? After all, unlike the IQ test, it is at the root materially, a static physical trait associated with cognitive function, that cannot be prepared for in any way (unless you cheat by losing weight).

In that MOC also speculated on the creation of an intellectual super-species to us, which I have done on my blog as well. Well, wise men think alike. And we might even see that happen within our lifetimes, especially with the unremitting efforts of Hsu.

In any case, we know well that the brain is incredibly complicated and diverse, as the basis of diverse abilities we see in people. There are parts of the brains tied to language ability, concrete/computational math ability, abstract math ability, musical ability, physical coordination, engineering ability, interpersonal manipulative ability, a host of personality traits, the list goes on. Maybe we will discover to some degree of detail and precision all this not too long from now. I wish I liked statistics and machine learning more, because certainly those would be much more applicable here than pure math.

Not long ago, I had the pleasure of commenting on an article by Yan Shen on Unz’s site, on the math/verbal split. It was well written, though he seems a bit overconfident on his judgment that East Asians are actually slightly lower at verbal. They are a bit according to the SAT and also some higher tests like GRE/LSAT/MCAT, but remember that many of the Asians in the US do not actually have English spoken at home or as their first language. I have some doubts on the extent to which verbal IQ tests measure genuine language aptitude. Crudely, because there is some knowing how the test works component and there are differences in exposure to language that cannot be explained by difference in ability. On that, I’ll say that a friend of mine has a very high appraisal of my verbal ability (and I mostly do too), though those tests have not shown me to be terribly exceptional in that regard. As my blog indicates, I happen to be really good with learning foreign languages, which comes to me quite effortlessly.

That article by Yan Shen led to my learning more about Ron Unz, one who I had known about vaguely for quite a while without having really cared enough to look into in more detail. Well, now I know that he is a child prodigy theoretical physicist turned successful finance software entrepreneur turned maverick political activist of Jewish ancestry. Quite an impressive guy. I was genuinely intimidated. He was the one who wrote that well-publicized Myth of American Meritocracy piece on corruption within elite college admissions in America, wherein he contends relatively convincingly with ample statistics that now it is the Jews who are grossly favored in the process once one controls for qualifications. To my great surprise, the group most underrepresented in the Ivy League is not one that is a beneficiary of affirmative action, but rather, the majority group on which this nation was founded, namely non-Jewish whites, which is honestly kind of nuts. The figure below says it all.

eliteenrollment-large

So we have now in American elite education, the primary channel towards the elite professional world, more or less a hierarchy wherein the administration consists of largely Jews, who with their social capital as a group are best equipped to successfully obtain funding, much of which comes from wealthy private donors. At the faculty level, there are also many Jewish professors arguably the most influential, followed by whites and underneath, some Asians mostly in STEM departments plus a small minority of Hispanics and blacks. Unz argues that Jewish power within the universities, administration, connections, and funding wise, contributes to the ease with which Jewish students are admitted.

Of course, in the typical classification, which is unlikely to change anytime soon, Jews are white, ergo white privilege, as a mask for what is in essence Jewish privilege. Really, this is all relatively easy to see if one looks closely.

Honestly, in spite of Unz’s statistics to the contrary, I still feel like American Jews in my generation are quite talented, especially at the tail end, though also likely not at the level of the previous generations for reasons related to outbreeding, and their lower metrics vis-a-vis Asians is likely much due to the latter’s group essentially being forced to work harder to obtain certain credentials as part of gaming this whole silly system. The lesson here is that it’s always best to be the rule maker, which the Jews as a group appear to be now to by far the greatest degree in America, though their position there may be increasingly precarious. On this, I shall note that Asian-American advocacy against the discrimination instituted against them in college admissions has received some backlash from some. Somebody an Asian-American has even commented

At the end of the line, I believe that persistent whining about this is a reflection of emotional immaturity on the part of Steve et al., in that they seem to have a ‘chip on their shoulder’ which they are incapable of overcoming, and if they were actually taking a principled approach, they would come together and try to create a superior alternative to the radically broken university system, which will likely not be saved by any infusion of Asian students.

Truly, I can identify somewhat with that perspective. I have written before that the long-term goal for Chinese should be that they do their best science in China, inside of in American institutions, which can only accommodate so many, where it is entirely unrealistic for Chinese to ever take anything close to a leading role, with the exception of a few places like Berkeley in areas with large Asian populations. Maybe some wealthy Chinese can even fund a university in America and make it sufficiently credible if the Chinese-American community feels too disenfranchised in terms of elite education and institutional connections by the current de facto quota system.

What are the stakes

So, what’s the point of getting an elite education? How high are the stakes really? Well surely, the stakes are much lower than at work where there are promotions and raises and actual social and political power is involved. The knowledge is more or less the same everywhere, with the exception of certain very specialized fields at the PhD level. However, there is a scarce artificial resource of credibility and social connection that, like it not, influences later career odds to a non-neglible degree. It does well seem to be the case that by being better connected/pedigreed you can often get away with being worse in actual ability or achievement, though in more meritocratic careers like STEM, there is no way you will survive if you really are incompetent, though now, as prestigious as it may be in a certain respect, STEM is generally not terribly remunerative while often grossly competitive. On the other hand, there are positions of power handed out largely on political favor and connections where one absolutely can be mediocre or even incompetent many of which are controlled by groups with elite school ties, especially on the business and law end.

From what I have observed, Asian-Americans, at least a certain stratum of them, are increasingly waking up to the reality that they and their kids are playing a game grossly rigged against them, and that it is in their best interest to organize against it and win a larger share of the pie for themselves that they deserve according to their merits. Many immigrants came from modest or even poor backgrounds from excelling in STEM and are not conditioned with high expectations materially. Many are absolutely content with a well-paying middle class STEM job. However, their kids who grow up more privileged than their parents expect more, especially when they see more first-hand what others less talented than they are are getting. Eventually, one will realize who is controlling all the social capital, and it might just occur that instead of being a spineless grind or asskisser within an existing system ruled by others, they should in ideal seek some alternative where they can take a more leading role.

Displacement of Jewish academic achievement

It has also occurred to me that there has been quite some displacement of Jews in STEM largely by Asians in recent years. Now it’s the Asian kids, not the Jewish kids, who are winning the academic contests, from the PSAT to the Olympiads to Intel STS to Putnam. Unz elaborates on that.

For example, consider California, second only to New York in the total number of its Jews, and with its Jewish percentage far above the national average. Over the last couple of years, blogger Steve Sailer and some of his commenters have examined the complete 2010 and 2012 NMS semifinalist lists of the 2000 or so top-scoring California high school seniors for ethnicity, and discovered that as few as 4–5 percent of the names seem to be Jewish, a figure not so dramatically different than the state’s 3.3 percent Jewish population, and an estimate which I have personally confirmed.54 Meanwhile, the state’s 13 percent Asians account for over 57 percent of the top performing students. Thus, it appears that California Asians are perhaps three times as likely as Jews to do extremely well on academic tests, and this result remains unchanged if we adjust for the age distributions of the two populations.

One means of corroborating these surprising results is to consider the ratios of particularly distinctive ethnic names, and Sailer reported such exact findings made by one of his Jewish readers. For example, across the 2000-odd top scoring California students in 2010, there was just a single NMS semifinalist named Cohen, and also one each for Levy, Kaplan, and a last name beginning with “Gold.” Meanwhile, there were 49 Wangs and 36 Kims, plus a vast number of other highly distinctive Asian names. But according to Census data, the combined number of American Cohens and Levys together outnumber the Wangs almost two-to-one, and the same is true for the four most common names beginning with “Gold.” Put another way, California contains nearly one-fifth of all American Jews, hence almost 60,000 Cohens, Kaplans, Levys, Goldens, Goldsteins, Goldbergs, Goldmans, and Golds, and this population produced only 4 NMS semifinalists, a ratio almost identical to that produced by our general last name estimates. The 2012 California NMS semifinalist lists yield approximately the same ratios.

When we consider the apparent number of Jewish students across the NMS semifinalist lists of other major states, we get roughly similar results. New York has always been the center of the American Jewish community, and at 8.4 percent is half again as heavily Jewish as any other state, while probably containing a large fraction of America’s Jewish financial and intellectual elite. Just as we might expect, the 2011 roster of New York NMS semifinalists is disproportionately filled with Jewish names, constituting about 21 percent of the total, a ratio twice as high as for any other state whose figures are available. But even here, New York’s smaller and much less affluent Asian population is far better represented, providing around 34 percent of the top scoring students. Jews and Asians are today about equal in number within New York City but whereas a generation ago, elite local public schools such as Stuyvesant were very heavily Jewish, today Jews are outnumbered at least several times over by Asians.55

This same pattern of relative Asian and Jewish performance on aptitude exams generally appears in the other major states whose recent NMS semifinalist lists I have located and examined, though there is considerable individual variability, presumably due to the particular local characteristics of the Asian and Jewish populations. Across six years of Florida results, Asian students are more than twice as likely to be high scorers compared to their Jewish classmates, with the disparity being nearly as great in Pennsylvania. The relative advantage of Asians is a huge factor of 5.0 in Michigan and 4.1 in Ohio, while in Illinois Asians still do 150 percent as well as Jews. Among our largest states, only in Texas is the Asian performance as low as 120 percent, although Jews are the group that actually does much better in several smaller states, usually those in which the Jewish population is tiny.

As noted earlier, NMS semifinalist lists are available for a total of twenty-five states, including the eight largest, which together contain 75 percent of our national population, as well as 81 percent of American Jews and 80 percent of Asian-Americans, and across this total population Asians are almost twice as likely to be top scoring students as Jews. Extrapolating these results to the nation as a whole would produce a similar ratio, especially when we consider that Asian-rich California has among the toughest NMS semifinalist qualification thresholds. Meanwhile, the national number of Jewish semifinalists comes out at less than 6 percent of the total based on direct inspection of the individual names, with estimates based on either the particularly distinctive names considered by Sailer or the full set of such highly distinctive names used by Weyl yielding entirely consistent figures. Weyl had also found this same relative pattern of high Jewish academic performance being greatly exceeded by even higher Asian performance, with Koreans and Chinese being three or four times as likely as Jews to reach NMS semifinalist status in the late 1980s, though the overall Asian numbers were still quite small at the time.56

Earlier we had noted that the tests used to select NMS semifinalists actually tilted substantially against Asian students by double-weighting verbal skills and excluding visuospatial ability, but in the case of Jews this same testing-bias has exactly the opposite impact. Jewish ability tends to be exceptionally strong in its verbal component and mediocre at best in the visuospatial,57 so the NMS semifinalist selection methodology would seem ideally designed to absolutely maximize the number of high-scoring Jews compared to other whites or (especially) East Asians. Thus, the number of high-ability Jews we are finding should be regarded as an extreme upper bound to a more neutrally-derived total

The U.S. Math Olympiad began in 1974, and all the names of the top scoring students are easily available on the Internet. During the 1970s, well over 40 percent of the total were Jewish, and during the 1980s and 1990s, the fraction averaged about one-third. However, during the thirteen years since 2000, just two names out of 78 or 2.5 percent appear to be Jewish. The Putnam Exam is the most difficult and prestigious mathematics competition for American college students, with five or six Putnam winners having been selected each year since 1938. Over 40 percent of the Putnam winners prior to 1950 were Jewish, and during every decade from the 1950s through the 1990s, between 22 percent and 31 percent of the winners seem to have come from that same ethnic background. But since 2000, the percentage has dropped to under 10 percent, without a single likely Jewish name in the last seven years.

This consistent picture of stark ethnic decline recurs when we examine the statistics for the Science Talent Search, which has been selecting 40 students as national finalists for America’s most prestigious high school science award since 1942, thus providing a huge statistical dataset of over 2800 top science students. During every decade from the 1950s through the 1980s, Jewish students were consistently 22–23 percent of the recipients, with the percentage then declining to 17 percent in the 1990s, 15 percent in the 2000s, and just 7 percent since 2010. Indeed, of the thirty top ranked students over the last three years, only a single one seems likely to have been Jewish. Similarly, Jews were over one-quarter of the top students in the Physics Olympiad from 1986 to 1997, but have fallen to just 5 percent over the last decade, a result which must surely send Richard Feynman spinning in his grave.

Other science competitions provide generally consistent recent results, though without the long track record allowing useful historical comparisons. Over the last dozen years, just 8 percent of the top students in the Biology Olympiad have been Jewish, with none in the last three years. Between 1992 and 2012, only 11 percent of the winners of the Computing Olympiad had Jewish names, as did just 8 percent of the Siemens AP Award winners. And although I have only managed to locate the last two years of Chemistry Olympiad winners, these lists of 40 top students contained not a single probable Jewish name.

Further evidence is supplied by Weyl, who estimated that over 8 percent of the 1987 NMS semifinalists were Jewish,60 a figure 35 percent higher than found in today’s results. Moreover, in that period the math and verbal scores were weighted equally for qualification purposes, but after 1997 the verbal score was double-weighted,61which should have produced a large rise in the number of Jewish semifinalists, given the verbal-loading of Jewish ability. But instead, today’s Jewish numbers are far below those of the late 1980s.

Sure, it might be that many from the older generation of Jews married out to Gentiles, which would have had some dysgenic effect on the IQ of the younger generation, and I wonder how large that effect is versus that maybe Asians are actually smarter and that it’s almost entirely due to there not having been many Asians in America in the generation of my parents.

Ron Unz has quite some data and numbers, and though the surname methodology may underestimate the number of Jews somewhat, the argument is quite convincing. I was indeed surprised. Of course, at the real far tail, especially in the adult world, it might be a very different picture. After all, the stuff Unz refers to is for kids, lacking in depth and substance, and on that, I can even attest that I’ve seen IMO gold medalists who I don’t find all that smart, holistically.

Well, I’ll conclude that my USAMO winner white Gentile friend will say to me that it’s universally known that Jews know how to talk, especially in the American/Western context, and how to manipulate Anglo minds, not to mention they also have more resources social and economic and acculturation wise to play the game. He thinks their actual ability is vastly inflated, and Ron Unz might agree with that, though surely, Ron Unz as an individual seems to be at the highest order (or at least close).

I cannot make a definitive conclusion on this. It’s very complex obviously. Again, I will reiterate that I believe Chinese, if they want more credibility, as much progress as they’ve made, still need to do better at home, especially at basic science research. In engineering and technology, China seems to already be at or close to the forefront on the world stage, and China ought to do the same for science. No matter what, Chinese, the largest group among Asian-Americans, will be seen as foreign in America. They should not expect too much especially at the top, especially in non-STEM areas. That friend of mine says that once Asians become rich enough, they can get well-connected, start companies, and hire mostly their own, and play the same nepotistic games that Jews play, or are at least perceived to. Maybe America, as a new nation founded on ____, really will turn into nobody’s country, into a potpourri of groups contend. Some in the alt-right, including Jared Taylor, fear that America will end up like Brazil. In any case, Chinese are kind of aware that in America, they are foreigners no matter how well they speak English or how “American” they try to be and that for that reason, it’s not really terribly fit for them to enter politics or American cultural life. I’ll say that the Jews as a group could learn a bit from that as well, especially when since 1947, they’ve had a country large enough to house the now 15 million of them. It’s not really terribly virtuous to place yourself in the parasitic elite in Western countries all over the world where one is a distinct minority in partial camouflage.

犹太人的野心

昨天,我再次与那位犹太国际数学奥赛金牌聊天,当初讨论的有不少与犹太人和以色列相关的话题。他既然会直接的说他觉得若少了些现有犹太人掌握的经济和政治权利,会是对世界不利的事情,也承认自己是个犹太复国主义者。之后,他又对我表示了他对中共和大陆的鄙视以及对台湾的偏向。不仅是KMT > GCD,还有若无日本侵略,则国民党将赢天下之荒谬绝对无任意限定的典型反华之扯话。

此让我再次反思:为何犹太人这么反华。虽我这人不太喜欢阴谋,愿尽量视人为善,但不得不想到:因为犹太人知道他们成为中国的寄生虫的可能性极小,唯有颠覆中华文化或政权才可得以之。他们在西欧,在美国,在俄罗斯是可以居住并肆无忌惮的谋到上层后活在老百姓头上,可是在中国这么做是绝不可能的。对他们,从某种角度而言,中国人对他们威胁最大,在学术界,商业界,政治思想界,中国人不仅最能与他们竞争而且也最能看透他们笑里藏刀而无所顾忌的行为。

免有误解,我想向读者明确己非反犹太分子,而是出于现实。没人可以否认犹太人最为总体对人类文明是极大的,以他们的智慧和创意,而且我对不少才华横溢的犹裔,包括我所认识的,是非常钦佩的。也有不少犹太人不符合甚至反对此民族所具备的恶略弊端。不过必须确定一个客观事实,那就是总体而言,犹太人所有的任人唯亲,对争取己利益长蛮横无理丰有施威诈人的行为,导致他们获取过多高层职位和地位后形成的某种难以逆转的恶略循环,他们的成功绝对不仅仅出于他们的天分和能力。

在媒体里,我们所得到的感觉是犹太人比较愿意靠自己的天分,自己独一无二的想象力,而不善于勉强手段。相反,华人经常被主流媒体描述为刻苦而缺乏创造性。我承认犹太人绝对有不少很有想象力并且敢于挑战权威的人,不过此非那么一致如所刻板化,而甚至可能是稍微相反。想起Steve Hsu曾在他博客写到在他上学的时候,所有他认识的人为SAT做过准备的都是犹太人,连亚裔家长都真的相信此考试是准备无意无效的智商测试。我所提的这位现在的做法非常符合Steve所说的。昨天,他却跟我说他母亲竟然还催他做GRE的试卷,做了两个还叫他继续做,直到做完第五个,让我非常吃惊。我当时想:“都上了大学犹太父母还会这样管孩子,这种事情我还真没听说过,甚至有点过分了。犹太父母是这么会保护孩子,为他们争取利益啊!”同样,他说高中时母亲还给他请了SAT家教,而像我这华人都从未上过任何SAT课(当然考的也不错)。不过这是高中孩子,还是孩子,此算寻常,但是真无法想象孩子上了大学了父母还会这样管。

我们都知道现在在那些顶级学生竞赛,如USAMO,如Putnam,如Intel STS,犹太人已经比不过华人了,可能他们真的没有那么聪明,所以我那位竞赛出类拔萃的白人朋友觉得事实上犹太人是不如东亚人的,有一定道理。可是他们之所以能够混的更好,尤其在商业界,是因为他们无所顾忌的互相提拔与支持以及不惜任何的追求金钱名利。若事实上在学术界和其他工作场合,犹太人更可能将别人的功劳称为己出,不会令我惊奇,毕竟我们都看到像Wolfram那样过分的人。我的那位朋友还怀疑不少大奖的委员会如诺贝尔委员会都有一定的偏向犹太人的偏见,受到太多犹太人的政治压力和说服。他说”白人和亚洲人基本公平竞争”(而犹太人并非如此),故与已经经济上更或远远更富裕的犹太人相比,优秀的白人和亚洲人失去了不少发展自己的机会。这位犹太人经常对我表示他对丘成桐为人处事的极其反感,将他形容为一个asshole。我也想过的确丘成桐有目中无人炙手可热之行为,但是看到犹太人的任人唯亲之流氓作为,不得不稍微狠一点。

我的那位朋友觉得美国公司不少结党营私勾心斗角尔虞我诈的不良风气都是上层犹太人促成的,因为看到他们的无所不用其极,不得不自卫一些并且,用美国人的说法,以火攻火。想起,大多最成功的对冲基金都是犹太人创办的,这一点,还真的可能是他们比较聪明。不过,一看到连Comcast这种彻底剥削人民的公司总裁都是犹裔,真的可以感到他们对美国社会的破坏是如此之大。最近还看到将近一半的NBA球队老板都是犹太人,这是多么不适当而可恶的比例啊!犹太人以他们对媒体,金融,法律(那个人还说他的姨夫是住纽约豪宅的极高收入原告律师)的控制,几乎是在操纵着美国社会,是非直接的美国统治者。现在连特朗普的女儿都嫁给了一位亲以色列的犹太人渣,更使得美国无法脱离犹太人以及以色列的无可抵抗的影响及政治压力。那犹太人还说他不喜欢工程,觉得工程是枯燥无味无文化思想的活(这一点我同意,但我完全认可工程并且肯吃苦的重要性),说若选律师或电机,他会毫无犹豫选前者,也提到高空间智商亚裔工程师与高语言智商犹裔律师之对比,让我想到在美国竟是亚裔在干创造经济价值的活儿被犹太统治者剥削。想到前几年那位华人实验物理学家被误判为间谍不得不全家荡产请一位好的犹太律师维护,此令任何正义的人痛心疾首。

我已看到过不少犹太人言荒谬甚至可被怀疑带以别有用心之关于中国的话。不少犹太人坚决赞成美国所谓的自由民主制度,像那个人还说中共要(中共眼中)解放台湾时,美国应该派出他们的海军去保护台湾这位民主的堡垒,这是多么不自量力的妄想自大啊!对人类有幸的是中国大陆如西方不同还没有沦陷于犹太人所主导的大多服从他们利益的言论压制及垄断,是世界少有的可以政治实事求是的有实际力量的国家,也是政治清醒不可被迷惑而明知为此自卫之紧要性的国家。这位犹太人还向我指责中国禁止谷歌脸书为还活在二十世纪的行为,这一点中国的确做的有点过分,表面显得非常丢面子,但是从国家战略角度是绝对必要的,怎么能让犹太人所带头的外国网络社交与媒体侵略腐朽人民的思想,挖掘大量中国人民的数据那。可以回顾谷歌创始人之一,一位在苏联出生的犹太人,对中国此做法极其公开反感并且带有卑鄙龌龊的道德优越主义,将中共之作为表为同于他和他父母所承受的苏共专政对自由言论的无情压迫。只不过他的这种虚伪善意忽悠不了任何政治觉悟的人,更忽悠不了中国政府。我的那位美国朋友对于犹太人却说过“更聪明并不意味着好心好意或者更具备道德价值。”也许在某些地方民族自我陶醉号称自己为选民的犹太人的确比中国人或任何其他民族更客观聪明,但是这个由他们贪得无厌肆无忌惮之寄生西方社会而被逐出109到330次的历史的民族绝对不比历史基本自力更生的中华文明更具备道德价值。所以中国人要坚持己不易之论而有的道德优越。我知道中国的儒家传统非常强调谦虚和自我反省,对内可以这样,可是对待犹太恶魔一定要有不惜一切,坚贞不移的反抗精神,要甚为警惕,觉不上他们的当,觉不受他们的委屈,若能力比他们强,觉不甘心于低于他们!我知道犹太人有很多人品非常好的实实在在工作为人之元,而且我跟某些在我眼中有趣友好无贪心的犹太人也都保持着良好关系。不过绝不要太投鼠忌器,因为任何民族的人对自己民族的罪行都有一定集体责任的。敢于公开指出此罪行的犹太人才是有真正的勇气,真正的道德。

这些话在我已所描述的任意不利于犹太人,即使百分之百客观正确,的话都可以被划为无可容忍并且有一定后果的反犹太主义,美国的政治气氛是很难被公开提到的,而相反,中文是在很多方面远远更自由的语言。再次说,犹太人出了不少绝顶聪明的人为人类做出了伟大的牢牢载入史册的贡献,突破了不少关键而长期悬而未决的科学障碍,创造了不少推进人类的伟大思想和科学潮流,这一点无人可否认。这周末,我在学习Urysohn的引理和度量化定理,觉得它们的证明实在是太原创巧妙了,绝对是天才的产物,而后在维基百科看到Urysohn是二十世纪初在俄罗斯的犹裔数学家,可惜英年夭折,如伽罗华(只不过伽罗华此度远远更高)。毫无疑问,这是一个伟大的民族,有许多非常值得学习的地方。不过,犹太人的卓越也是非常近代的,在这一点那位朋友也明确跟我说过从长远来看,人类文明主要还是欧洲和中国创造的,而不是犹太人的。同时,他们居住在别人的故乡而所为的无耻不羁的经济政治贪婪的现状和历史也是非常可藐视的。与往不同,现在犹太人收回了他们所谓的神圣领土,以色列,可是这一点没有减轻他们的弊端,而是使之加重,恨不得要将西方国家变成以色列的傀儡,一看到被父亲买进哈弗的伊万卡老公加强美国对以色列的支援真的让人感到非常恶心,甚至可以说在这一点,犹太人是人类文明的破坏者,是改造消灭当务之急的寄生虫。我经常读的一位知识渊博而话语真实的历史政治评论家Gwydion Madawc Williams却把以色列的表现形容为自杀式的军事主义,并且提到以色列的时间不会太长,甚至提到澳大利亚是将来最可能接受以色列难民的地方。这一点我感到不可思议,因为在我眼中,以色列拥有先进的武器装备和科技,包括核武器,非常聪明的人,加以西方强国的支持,现已基本保证了自己的生存。不过Gwydion的判断我还是非常尊重,他的理由是以色列不肯和他们敌人做出任何可被敌人接受的妥协,也同时在不断得罪支持他们的西方朋友,而且长期言来,千万余犹太人是无法抵抗十亿多穆斯林人的,也有一定道理。当然,以色列和犹太人的未来,只有时间会告诉我们。

谁是世界最聪明的人

我是一个极其痴迷于天才怪才奇才和智商的人。我多次写过将人类的智力和所有能力提高应当是非常紧要的,因为只有这样才能使得人类文明有大的提升,才能使人类科技文艺创新大大加速,才能使得更加文明的社会和政治体制和秩序得以实现。不同智商分布的人口必然会创造不同的文化,不同的生活方式,不同的人类文明。

前几天,我看了徐道辉(Steve Hsu)与美国极右派Stefan Molyneux的讨论,有了深刻的感受。可以回想到徐提到在首尔或北京,一个女人可以在半夜到街上而对安全无所担忧,在美国的大城市这是无可想象的。虽未直言,可我们都知道是因为智商与罪犯行为的反相关关系应用在智商分布稍高的东亚国家之特例。徐也说道我们都有一点尼安德特人的血统,可是其占我们整个基因组很小一部分。智人所能创造的好多是尼安德特人无能的,故逐渐后者被前者覆盖而代替。他说我们可以想象他们创造物理学家或诗人的几率会比我们小很多。徐又漏出了他直截了当,对政治正确毫无在意的幽默,说:“我觉得我不会愿我的女儿嫁给一个尼安德特人。”

对于优生胚胎筛选及基因工程的可能,他说:有人会说,我们不会出一个比爱因斯坦或比高斯还聪明的人,我觉得这都是荒谬的扯淡。他说:任何一个明智的政府都会对此科研方向给以同,如一个粒子加速器,那么多的经济投入,他的回报会远远大于投入。我想会有一天可能所有治疗维持昂贵的疾病会在胚胎阶段就被过滤掉,也可能低于80的智商会被法律禁止。

徐道辉是一个科学革命者,也是一个敢于抵抗任何反动势力的斗争者,我对他的气贯长虹和对抗精神钦佩不已,望他继续前进创造人类新的巅峰,将他的名字牢牢地载入史册!不过,昨天我的一位与我同年龄的朋友却对徐道辉表示某某反感,将他的最近的表现(他反对大学种族配额制度有包)形容为高语言智商(略低数学智商)之公共(伪)知识分子的行为。对此,我立即给以回应,说徐道辉已经得到了理论物理的终身教职,并且创办了两个成功的硅谷网络安全企业,现已五十余岁,做点政治扯淡和宣传也没什么不得了的,而很可能在此,他会产生比做单一研究远远更大的影响,他可是将社会指引到更正确,更有效的方向。

徐道辉对东亚国家所做的成功的地方显然已有认识。谈到这儿,我想起我的那位俄罗斯朋友曾经还开玩笑将他叫做“你的(东)亚裔优越主义朋友”。当然,徐也提到普遍被认为的东亚的过于顺从的文化不利于出做出革命性科学贡献的孤胆怪才,甚至东亚人天生就天才性格少出的可能性。毕竟人类文明最跨越性的时代显明是西方白种人创造的,是西方人创造了文艺复兴,科学革命,工业革命,周游并且占领殖民了几乎整个寰球,而在十九世纪中旬,西方白种人与其他人几乎是人夷之别。十九世纪末期,日本人和中国人都要想西洋人学习,尤其是学习他们的先进科学和技术。在那个时候,东方人都怀疑自己脑子本质上就是不如西洋人的,此在西洋遥遥领先横扫全球的情况是所预料的自然心理反应。不过,日本以飞快的速度吸收了大多西洋科技,成了第一个非西方现代化国家,此由1905年俄日战争之胜利所标志。中国人现代化的比日本晚的多,二十世纪上半中国所处于的内忧外患以及军阀内战对此有大大阻碍,可是中国派出去的留学生在理工科学的很好,逐渐把这些更先进的知识带回了他们的祖国。中国人和日本人打进近代科学的绝对一流的成果也都是从数学然后理论物理开始的,日本是第一世界大战时的高木贞治(Teiji Takagi)然后三十年代时的汤川秀树(Hideki Yukawa),中国是二战时期左右的华罗庚和陈省身,然后五十年代的杨振宁和李政道,这些都是在最需要智商的学科,表示了东亚民族极端的科学聪明才智。之后,中国人和日本人出的这样的人越来越多,现在已到频繁,不过在最顶级比西方还是要差一点或一些,尤其是中国。所以或许还是西方人最能出最天才的种子。

我总是觉得最最聪明的人大多还是犹太人,可以说二十世纪是没有一个,至少得以广泛认可的,与John von Neumann齐智的人了。同样,即使在科学深度和眼光也是犹太人处于巅峰。但是,这一点不是完全没有异议的。我的一位非犹裔国际数学奥赛金牌白人朋友却觉得东亚人比犹太人聪明,令我吃惊。不过,或许今天在年青一代还真的是这样,以中国学生为主的东亚学生常是精英数学竞赛的佼佼者,甚至占其主部为据,加上今年也有越来越多东亚数学家做出的精彩结果,以张益唐的孪生素为代表。徐道辉也跟我说,东亚人和犹太人是两个很不同的分布,前者多广泛,后者少儿精。对此,我想到了类似的比喻,那就是犹太人如斯坦福或哈佛,而东亚人如伯克利。此人口分布之差依然会给以最精犹多之结果,在这一点,我记得一位华裔国际数学奥赛金牌曾跟我说,犹太人虽然平均更聪明,但是东亚裔可以由数量弥补,照样可以出陶哲轩或张益唐这样的人。当然,智力难以作绝对的比较,因为每个人都有他自己的风格和特点,有长有短,而我感觉东亚人与犹太人,作为集体,表现出他们才华也是各有各的“民族特色”,是上千上万年分开进化所导致的基因和文化差异的必然结果。

诸多西方右派学者会谈到当代西方劣生的趋势。在此,已逝世的加拿大心理学家Philippe Rushton曾提到黑死病大大提升欧洲人智商而促使西方和人类文明大爆发的设想,并且猜测从此,白种人一直在逐渐退化到他们所有的“自然水平”,将此事件划为一个彻底改变人类走向的大偶然,并且对东方社会,尤其是中国,具有在西方主流极少有的乐观,并早在2006年就大胆说“他们足有脑力与我们同步或比我们更高。”现在看来,他是一位极其有远见的敢于纯粹真实的挑战主流错误观点的孤胆西方心理学家。他的研究发表曾经引起过轩然大波,不过我相信历史会证明他为类似于伽利略的科学烈士。Rushton的研究既科学又透彻,将智商和性格,在种族之间,与大脑和整个身体结构提出了整体的带有生理发育和进化缘故的描述与结论。Rushton的一位同派对偶学者Richard Lynn甚至觉得东方人会是西方文明的继承人,认为中国有更先进的,更高智商性质的,可以做出更有效决定及决策的”专制“制度可促进超越似的腾飞。

这一点和徐道辉所提的“明智的政府”有交叉。美国有世界上最聪明的人做出伟大的科技贡献,但是美国也有太多愚蠢的有地位和权利的人和整体智商低带来的彻底否认基因因素自由主义白左文化占有一定政治分量,而相反,中国政府的人都是相当聪明的理性的经受过理工科教育的人。在过去,几百年,欧洲西方文明一直站在主流领导地位,从而中国人的不自信和感受到的压力对外是根深蒂固的,不过中国还一直在改革开放同时坚持走自己独特的,前所未有的发展道路和政治经济制度。如果中国能够大胆进行基因的探索和优化,很可能会开创伟大的新的历史潮流。在当前所讲的讨论里,徐道辉也说如果有任何大国竞争,能够生出(并且培养出)各行各业的最好的人的必然会是赢者。

还有一点被徐道辉阐述,那就是某一个上世纪初左右的调查发现在十二岁智商是最能预测长寿的变量,比二十多岁的BMI对其所占的差还要大。更高的智商说明一个人一般会做出更好的身体治理选择,比如不吸毒和日常锻炼,同样也具备更佳的身体基因,得到的与基因相连的病总体而言会少一些,轻一些。Rushton也提到了智商与长寿的联系,在他的书里把东亚人定位最长寿的。虽然粗略,但有一定道理,在于我们能看到东亚人老化比其他民族晚一些,而且日本作为最发达的东亚国家具有世界最长的预期寿命之一,也具有被记载验证的在世超级人瑞(高于110岁的人)的相当大的比例。Rushton也写到东亚人有稍长一点的孕期和稍晚一点的发育期起头,这些是百分之百客观的事实,是分开进化多年导致的结果,也对从某种角度而言东亚人更进化有所隐式。这只能说明智商是人的最中心变量,最有预测力量的变量,连与智商肤浅而观毫无联系的人的特征与人生结果都有一定的,相当一致的统计相关。

我们还能看到智商与价值观和政治观点的密切联系,聪明的人的趣味经常相和,而反过来也有沆瀣一气的说法。我们能看到高智商的人少有宗教教条,比较唯物主义,即使是虔诚的信教者,也是比较理性对待大多问题,经常把教当做一种欣赏的文化遗产,其过时不道之点明知而适当忽略。相反,低智商的人有问题的几率远远更高,经常过这悲惨的生活,无奈感受到住在半瘫痪悟觉里的痛苦,所有人,即使聪明人,都有幼小软弱无能的经过,可以对此感受有所理解,只不过孩子因为是孩子会有成人照顾,而成人承担一定的责任是社会的要求,则一个低智商或缺乏克制力的脑子没有完善发育的人走向社会带来的必然会带来一定的悲剧。从这一点出发,只有提高人的基因才能解决人类面临的诸多问题。我们现在所做的很多是在给病人吃止痛剂,而不是把疾病的根源消灭掉。

虽然困难障碍很多,但我还是保持一定的乐观。我相信在我有生之年我们会至少走向脱胎换骨跨越智人能力限制的初步,解除世界遗患,给我们的后代创造更美好的未来,让他们享受到我们无法的更清醒的意识感受!

My awesome roommate

I recently met this cool guy because we live in the same place. Though he’s not that nerdy (by that, I mean super mathy), we still share many common interests. For instance, he expressed interest when I told him a bit about 艾思奇(Ai Siqi). Additionally, he told me about his appreciation for André Weil and Simone Weil, particularly her mysticism, which I found quite pleasing as I was reading about them not long ago. He also told me about this guy who is trying to understand Mochizuki’s “proof” of the abc conjecture despite being not long out of undergrad, who has plenty of other quirks and eccentric behaviors. Like, that guy joined some Marxist collective, and goes on drunken rants at 3 am, and is in general “aspie af,” something that he described me as too when messaging that guy himself. There is also: “he would literally kill himself if he had to do a tech job.” (laughter) That guy’s dad happens to be a (tenured) math professor from mainland China, more evidence that madness runs in families.

The guy that is the topic of this post himself did up to high school, as far as I know, in Hong Kong, so we have some more in common than usual culturally I guess. He was just telling me about how he had read 矛盾论, which I haven’t even read, at least not in detail, myself. He was saying, on the putative connection between scientific talent and Marxism, perhaps how dialectical materialism is inherently a very scientific way of thinking. I myself know basically nothing about dialectical materialism and even think it’s kind of high verbal low math bullshit, but I can tell that the materialist side of it is very scientific in its very nature, and similarly, dialectics is a very analogies/relationships way of thinking, which is something that high IQ people are by definition good at. Surely, there is much more I can learn from this guy, especially about Chinese language and culture and politics.

On this, I am reminded of another amateur (but professional, or better, level for sure) Marxist scholar, who is genuinely encyclopedic in his historical and cultural knowledge, in particularly a perceptive quote of him that made a deep impression on me:

Europe has always been in rebellion against itself, and continues to be so.  There was nothing but futility in the attempt by superficially Westernised Chinese to be authentically Westernised Chinese by being imitative and reverential of the current embodiment of those values.  You could only be an authentically Westernised Chinese by being a rebel against the current embodiments of Western values, at least in as far as they hampered China or seemed to be irrelevant.  And that’s why Mao was China’s best Westerniser to date, despite his very limited experience of the mundanities of Western life.

As I’ll detail in a future article, visitors to the Chinese Communist bases at Bao’an and later Yen’an noticed that these were the only Chinese in China who behaved more or less as Westerners would have behaved in a similar situation.  Other Chinese might speak good English, wear Western suits and sometimes show considerable knowledge of Western culture: but it was all imitation and the inner core was different and ineffective.  Western-trained engineers and geologists who returned to China kept their distance from hands-on practical work, because anything resembling manual labour would have lost them status in the eyes of Chinese intellectuals.  They were imprisoned by a tradition stretching back to Confucius and beyond.  Only a few broke these ancient taboos, mostly the Communists and some scattered left-wingers in the weak middle ground.  And it was the modernised Chinese in the Communist Party who chose to raise up Mao as the prime teacher of this new understanding.

I remember when my obsessively talented Russian friend once said to me that sometimes he feels like he’s another Pavel Korchagin, I thought he was ridiculous. Well, I’ll be equally ridiculous and say that I feel like I very much exhibit what Gwydion described in Mao that is “authentically Westernized Chinese,” which is very much the antithesis of what I see in most ABCs, despite being half an ABC myself.

If only more people could be like me…

Oleg

Oleg is one of my ubermensch Soviet (and also part Jewish) friends. He has placed at (or at least near) the top on the most elite of math contests. He is now a math PhD student with an advisor even crazier than he is, who he says sometimes makes him feel bad, because he has done too little math research wise. However, this persona alone is not that rare. Oleg’s sheer impressiveness largely stems from that on top of this, he is a terrific athlete, extremely buff and coordinated, enough that he can do handstand pushups, to the extent that he regards such as routine. Yes, it is routine for a guy contending for a spot on a legit gymnastics team, but you wouldn’t expect this from a math nerd huh?

Today, I was talking to him and some others about gym. In particular, I was saying how I could at one point do 10 pullups but dropped down to 2 after a long hiatus. The conversation went as follows:

Me: Oleg I’m back to 5 pull-ups now
Oleg: that’s good although make sure you’re doing them for real
i still don’t believe you could do 10 but then dropped down to 2
Me: Oh I’m very sure they’re full pullups
Okay maybe it was 8
Oleg: i’d like to see evidence
Me: Alright I’ll have someone videotape me do pullups today in gym

And so I did.

Later, Oleg suggested something pretty funny:

i still think you should get tattoos and gain 25 lb of muscle, that would be hilarious
then walk up to girls and ask about their SAT scores
and say “oh, that’s too low, i don’t want to breed babies with you”
followed by a cackle
i’d watch that show

Not surprisingly, Oleg, as buff as he is, has had some success with girls, though he regards himself as shy and struggling in that regard. I keep telling him that he needs to marry a girl who’s both super smart and attractive like he is, so that he can optimize his chance of making superhuman babies. His only disadvantage now is that he’s a poor math PhD student, but he can easily change that by, say, joining DE Shaw, from what I’ve read is full of uber nerdy macho Eastern European men. He’s not very interested in money though, and expresses content with his graduate student stipend, which I find laughable.

I find it regrettable that most ubermensch men smart enough for legit doctoral programs in math and physics are unable to find a mate who is commensurate with them, ability wise, even with some adjustments, even when they’re well-rounded like Oleg is. Why is this? Excessive Aspergers? On that, I know someone who will say along the lines of

in an actual long-term relationship you have to share most of your life with the person, and if they don’t understand the way you look at the world then it creates friction
sure, the girl doesn’t need to understand high energy physics, I have other friends for that

Maybe some females could give us some advice, other than the cliche “hit the gym” that you’ll often hear from males. Such would be much appreciated! 😉

主义

昨天在网上碰到了一个有趣的视频,标题为“My Life, My China – I am a Communist Party member 被打上标签的人”。此内容我就不在这里谈了,读者可以自己看此十分钟以下的视频。里面人所表达的想法和个人经历给我留下了深刻的感受,也在我心目中启发了一定的反思。

我有想过基本问题,那就是人的动力主要出于什么?人是为什么而活?反过来,悲观者也可以说,人是如何最佳承受,至少在唯物主义角度不为己而选的入世以及其所产生的生理意识,以及大自然社会所迫使他的挑战和困难。在这种情况下自然有某某主义的产生为推动人在世界上的奋斗和挣扎,结成人类的组织。主义是多元化的,从宗教主义,到民族主义,到资本主义,到共产主义,永远列不完。

人的精神状态是多动可变的,人可有心灵奔放的兴奋和喜悦,也可有无比痛苦的悲伤和忧郁,人可有坚定不移的动力和勇气,也可有盲目纠结的迟钝和畏惧。相对的高潮和低谷会降临在所有人,所有团体,所有国家,由不同经历发生所促成,也长会直接或隐式的导致在前无可预料的新进展,新眼光。

基本所有人都面临过动力的问题。我本人也有过对曾经至少稍微痴迷过的活动或学科发起厌倦,甚至感到无可忍受,要不是这样就是一种枯燥无味之感,令人精神麻木。在这一点,我认为紧要的是要学会脱离无聊弱智低级趣味的人和环境,因为这只会对一个优良的人和品德进行腐蚀性的感染,使其失去他的卓越精神和纯粹心灵。

不用说,金钱是某些必要物质条件的来源,可是我认为仅以金钱吸引推动人是会有遭遇性的。着这一点看看美国大公司的好多高官就足够了,那些人纯粹是爬社会梯子的官僚,真心在乎的不是领导公司,创造财富,而是介公司的名义是势力为他们自己谋取权利金钱和社会威望。说白了,现在清醒的人民都恨死他们了,因为他们甚至是在使得美国国家和社会土崩瓦解,这些年来,人互相之间的诚信只是降得越来越低,因为大家更加看到公司人越到高层越是结党营私图一己之利,其远远胜于公司的长期利益和前途,现在公司和员工之间的忠诚早已成了笑话了,这是一件很不幸的事情。

看到越多,读到越多,我越来越感到最能激发人的动力和创造力以及极端行为是主义。是主义最能让一个团队,一个民族团结起来万众一心无私奉献将个人得失置之度外的追求同一个目标,它可以激发人创造人间奇迹,也可以促动无情的侵略和战争和野蛮的奸淫和屠杀,让人死都不怕。我在一篇文章中曾经看到

毛泽东时代的另一大特色,是全体中国人民具有很强的凝聚力,这是中国成为现代化强国必不可少的条件。人们看看那些近代发展最快的国家如日本、德国和苏联。德国和日本由于统治集团大肆宣传本民族优越论,客观上造成德意志、大和民族具有很强的凝聚力。苏联是用共产主义理想凝聚人心,也使其各民族具有高昂的战斗力。

而我认为这种观点是完全正确的,认为这显然处于人的本性。在今天美国的多民族自由主义政治正确文化和教育,这种观点是会得以强烈排斥的,甚至此坚信者会被非人化,但这我并不太在意,因为在我眼中,这些都是出于在此教育文化环境对人内心塑造的过于情绪化而非理性出发的反应和某些荒谬的默认观点。

我一直对西方民主制度,尤其是美国所提倡的,产生怀疑,现在是更加相信这条路是冲着悲剧走的。美国所提倡的“民主”是虚伪,他过于强调大多数人在非常有限的经济条件下的“自由选择”,而非注重整个社会提升其素质和水平,过于缺乏纪律的强调,将权利掌握在水平太低的人手里,而且由于给私人太多权利缺乏强大的组织好以有快速有效的执行能力,山头林立,矛盾无解,视野短浅,停滞不前。

不少知识分子有提到人类文明现所处在的下降趋势,其要点之一为人类智商和基因的退化,随着现代医疗和相对容易的生活环境使得太多具有严重身体或智力障碍的往时无法继生的人不仅长成,而且还大量将自己的种子传承到下一代。我个人也认为人的能力实在是太有限了,而且现在的人水平实在太差,虽然人类积累了远远更深的往时无可想象的知识和科技,但是人固有的能力很可能是比以前差了,尤其在非精英层次。我个人经常看到水平一般或差的人会内心想:哎呀,大多人真是那么无趣无味,难道找到一个我愿意或能跟着深度相处的人真的那么难吗?同时,虽然我自己还算不错,但是也有很多对自己不满的地方,承认自己不是任何超人。我欲智力无穷,高飞云满天,但是我不能啊。这自然就把我引导接下的一条思路,那就是如何提高人的水平,可以用训练的方式,可是材料太差是炼不成钢的,即使练成了也是低质量的钢。那就得找到好的材料,把所有的,各方面的,从智力到身材到品德到战斗勇气,好的基因给挖掘出来,只有这样才能促进人类跨越进步。就像我们今天好多视为寻常的科技会令前人震惊,我们也可以将今天的天才化为未来的等闲。

回到此文之标题,是什么主义将人类将世界带到下一个层次,带到崭新的阶段?我猜测肯定会是敢于挑战操纵提升智人基因的主义,只有它能够将限制困扰我们的缺陷和微弱消除掉,开创人类历史新篇章!
 

冬奥会

韩国的2018年冬奥会即将来临,盼望看到精彩的体育表演。说起这,我会想到一俩月前得知俄罗斯由涉嫌使用禁药“验证”而遭到IOC的禁赛。当时在媒体看到有人评论:冬奥会的销售已经被当前的朝鲜半岛危机所大大阻扰,现在又失去了俄罗斯强者的参与,只会让为此有不少经济投入的韩国组织者更加头疼。我个人认为这个禁止有点过分了,运动员总有黑的,在美国的棒球,橄榄球,例子太多,难道因为有一个吃药的明星,就把整个球队抛掉吗?我的一位俄罗斯朋友,一位在美国长大的俄罗斯人,为此极其愤怒,将次化为阴谋,美国操纵IOC,甚至说美国故意让俄罗斯运动员吃的药过不了检验,而他们自己的运动员的可以。

今天网上搜奖牌榜预测,从而得知了Lindsay Vonn,因为那里的视频竟然有这位美国滑雪运动员为禁俄罗斯之决定张正嘴。好奇这种运动员的背景的我扫了扫此维基百科页,看到这位挪威裔姑娘出生于冬天满雪盖地的Minnesota,两岁就开始滑雪,并且在这方面有曾经赢过junior title的父亲的强烈鞭策。不用说,滑雪是有钱人的运动,所需要的设施是必可避免的昂贵,加上又有受伤的风险,想起前几年赛车手Michael Schumacher滑雪时头撞上了石头,导致达到长期不省人事的重伤,现在基本处于永久脑损伤状态。就是在美国,也有人笑话加以藐视的把冬奥会当做一个rich white person的聚会。

不过,这届加上下一届冬奥会都将在东亚举行,这次在韩国,下次在中国,说明东亚国家也不差了。想起自己四五岁时候在中国还滑了一次雪,对此还依然留下相当深刻的记忆。我想当时,中国滑雪过的人还很少,可能大多都是运动员或军队的人,那时候还太穷。现在或许不少了,而只会越来越多,尤其在中国冬奥会申办成功所有的对雪上运动的宣传作用。看来中国在冬奥会表现的还可以,特别在那种翻跟头的玩命项目(06年韩晓鹏就赢得了自由式滑雪男子空中技巧金牌),而将来随着资源,培训的扩张只会更好,甚至能达到与北欧国家竞争的程度。我个人真的觉得滑雪滑冰这些都挺cool,可惜我两个都一般般。

最后,我想再次说感到俄罗斯的不在真的是非常可惜。第一,它让冬奥会失去了一定的活力。第二,这是又一个对美国流氓政治家的认可,也是对在我眼中有很多可羡慕学习的地方的俄罗斯的一种绝不恰当的全盘否定。虽然俄罗斯问题很多,现在从某种角度是个醉汉的失败国,但是它依然是一个文艺高雅,科技强大,又具有纯粹卓越加以血性精神的国家和民族。可能我见到的俄罗斯人大多都是来到美国的,文化水平比较甚至极高的,有一定的向正面歪曲的印象, 但是即使在美国,我发现俄罗斯人除了科技水平很高,而且是很具有创造力的那种,他们不太善于玩美国公司里经常玩的小人政治,更愿意靠他们的真正的能力,不太在乎升官谋利,与其他民族相比,也不是那么在意名校,对美国体制的一些腐朽的,令人精神盲目的地方,比较排斥,懒得game the system,有一种直截了当,实事求是的精神。加上,他们一点都不书呆子,会做很多业余的事情,也敢于冒险,不怕挑战权威。回忆到一位大学认识的俄罗斯学生竟然骑着摩托车到外地实习,又问我愿不愿意坐他的车,令我吃惊。你可能会视之为不必要的不注重安全的胆大包天,可是反过来也可以说这表现出一种冲锋陷阵天不怕地不怕的探险精神。中国父母大多我想是不会允许他们孩子这样做的,但他的父母对此却毫无介意,甚至鼓励。他们是具有超人本性的民族,他们有Kolmogorov或列宁的气魄和纯粹,而美国那些政治人渣却要禁止他们参赛,可气可悲啊!

没想到,或潜意识有想到,以冬奥会为标题的博客文章却即将将俄罗斯人的精髓为中心了。此说起,就让文章到此为止,免得走题。