I don't quite know what to make of Joan Chiao, from the department of psychology at Northwestern University. As far as I am concerned anyone from a psychology department anywhere must have a beard and constantly play with a yo-yo as they babble mostly nonsense. Ms. Chiao being a female of the species might find the beard bit tricky! On the other hand, I am full of admiration for the lady in publishing in an American university a piece of research that is blatantly racist. How she has escaped tarring and feathering by the ever-vigilant 'thought police' and 'language commissars' , I do not know. Anyway, according to The Mail, she and her colleagues have been investigating cultural sterotypes (SHLOCK-HORROR - don't tell the 'Graun'!) and they have paid particular attention to the differences between "British individualism and Chinese conformity". Actually, I suspect the "British" slant is emphasised by The Mail because, well, because it's The Mail, innit! I think Ms. Chiao and her learn-ed colleagues were comparing western culture with the Chinese and other Asians.
Racial, or even national, traits are a very complex and slippery subject. For a start, much belongs in the eye of the beholder. Even so, it is Marxist nonsense to suggest that such traits do not exist at all. In a way investigating such things is similar to the study of gases which are measured not by the individual actions of each and every molecule but by mathematical averaging. The difference, of course, is that in gases the molecules never alter but people are forever changing to the intense irritation of politicians.
Even so, Ms. Chiao maintains that the individuality she observes in western people should be compared with the conformity of the Chinese. Oddly enough this chimes with some thoughts attributed to the late Mr. Jobs of Apple fame who maintained that the whole computer revolution of recent times could not have occurred anywhere else but the free-living, free-wheeling and free-dealing society of California in the last three decades. By implication he was saying that the Chinese were only good for copying not inventing. Ms. Chiao, in effect, confirms that opinion by telling us of their investigations into the genetic differences:
Chiao and her colleagues combined data from global genetic surveys, looking at variations in the prevalence of various genes. The findings were matched with other research which ranked nations by levels of individualism and collectivism.
So which little genetic 'critter' was to blame, if indeed, blame is involved:
The team focused their attentions on the gene that controls levels of serotonin, a chemical in the brain which regulates mood and emotions.
Their studies found that one version of the gene was far more common in western populations which, they said, was associated with individualistic and free-thinking behaviour.
Another version of the same gene, which was prevalent in Asian populations, they said was associated with collectivism and a greater willingness to put the common good first.
Why is it, I wonder, when I read articles like that the one word which keeps drumming away at the back of mind is - bollocks! I don't know but perhaps it's something to do with my serotonin level!
"it is Marxist nonsense to suggest that such traits do not exist at all."
Well, Marxist in the sense that the contemporary followers of carefully-selected bits of his writings would be aghast at the racist label, but the old boy himself had all the racist prejudices of a typical Victorian bourgeois. He thought that blacks were inferior, and had no revolutionary potential. He also was a firm believer in phrenology - the belief that individual character is determined by bumps on the head!
Posted by: Whyaxye | Monday, 12 March 2012 at 09:37
Her answer may be entirely conventional but her question is interesting. She's exploited an opportunity since no white male could ask that question without lots of hassle.
Posted by: dearieme | Monday, 12 March 2012 at 11:24
It should, perhaps, be mentioned that Ms. Chiao is a very attractive lady of Chinese origin and I doubt very much that she has ever grown a beard.
Posted by: Andra | Monday, 12 March 2012 at 19:36
A few years ago I read an essay on the way pharmaceuticals actually work, the point being that quite often there is a theory, but nobody really knows. They just work.
An example given was serotonin reuptake inhibitors. If they inhibit the reuptake of serotonin, where does the serotonin actually go? Nobody actually knows.
So I reckon you have a good rule of thumb there David – linking the words "bollocks" and "serotonin".
Posted by: A K Haart | Monday, 12 March 2012 at 21:28
A friend was told that a particular medication would shrink his tumour. "Where does the stuff go?" he asked. "Will it come out my ears?" The reply: "I've never thought about it."
Posted by: dearieme | Monday, 12 March 2012 at 22:05
So, a single gene that supposedly expresses itself in substantial differences in 'conformity' and 'innovation' (whatever they are), and that are allegedly different between Western and Asian peoples?
As far as my limited genetics knowledge goes there isn't a single gene involved in the expression of even the simplest bodily function, let alone something as complex as social behaviour and mental abilities. (It really isn't safe letting a pseudo-scientist 'psychologist' near real scientists data, you know!)
Then of course there's the cultural assumptions involved. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there acknowledged differences in social conformity between almost identical (genetically speaking) populations such as the German, French and we British (let's not mention Greek or Italian either)? And aren't these differences of at least the same order (or greater) as those between the supposedly different Western and Asian populations? (Didn't someone once suggest that the communists chose the wrong country to trial their ideology, since if it was we British chosen we would have cheerfully followed the diktats, enjoyed the austerity and uniformity, and queues as we had those as national pastimes anyway?)
I'm no expert ('Ex' - a has been, 'Spurt' - a drip of water under pressure) but the differences appear to be culturally based (based on how the family, educational establishment and governance indoctrinate their populations). Oh, and how many 'innovators' living in freewheeling California happen to have come from austere Britain, Marxist Russia, Caste ridden India and conformist China Mr Jobs?
So, I'll call 'bullshit' on this one too! YMMV
Posted by: Able | Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 06:43
Alas, ladies and gentlemen, I have been cogitating (well, it sounds so much more superior than just 'mulling over') on this subject and a new post up above will be the result.
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 08:39