[ballark]

This article is full of obvious logical errors.

They claim that East Asians develop cognitive capacity at an earlier age than other races and that gives East Asians a compounding practice advantage that gives them the edge in academic scores. The article claims, based on this premise, that universities like Harvard should actually discriminate even more against East Asians.

The article is full of obvious leaps designed to sound smart but are actually logically vacuous.

Much of the article essentially boils down to this: Young East Asians test highly > The quantity of older East Asian who are successful don't reflect the quantity of young East Asians who achieve academically > Therefore, East Asians start smart and then other races catch up cognitively in adulthood A) Racism is likely factor here. East Asians are less represented in leadership because leadership perceives East Asians are being less leaderly. Now we're using the symptoms of racism in order to justify the racism itself. B) Nurture versus nature is a complicated and unsettled debate yet the author tries to claim that because China has a creativity problem, it's proof that East Asians as a race has a creativity problem. Never mind that Japan is a world leader in innovation. C) Article repeatedly use test scores to say something qualitatively about the characteristics of a race. For example, East Asians test high on math therefore East Asians have more quantitative reasoning capabilities. You could just as easily attribute this to cultural differences in study priorities.

2) "If these children are scoring as high as 120 on average at the age of four (despite being hospitalized for malnourishment) and 110 to 112 at the age of ten, it is implausible that their IQ goes up as they grow older" Come on. Why? You can't just assume that hitting a high IQ at an early age means that it cannot continue growing. Especially when these IQ scores are being compared against age groups.

[richmunk567]

There are no logical errors, and the article is not logically vacuous.

>East Asians are less represented in leadership because leadership perceives East Asians are being less leaderly.

Can you provide evidence that this is what's going on instead of something else? Plenty of leaders in the US are East Asian.

>using the symptoms of racism in order to justify the racism itself

You didn't present your own evidence that the 'symptoms' are actually due to racism. The author presents a compelling explanation backed up with data that explains what we see.

>Never mind that Japan is a world leader in innovation

The article quotes the Japanese government stating it believes it has an innovation challenge as well.

>You can't just assume that hitting a high IQ at an early age means that it cannot continue growing

IQ is relative to others the same age. This is evidence that East Asians develop cognitive ability more quickly than other populations. All healthy children continue getting smarter as they develop. This is all discussed in the article.

[changchuming]

Except that China is rapidly catching up to the US in terms of innovation. Take a look at the number of patents filed by China and US in recent years. People look at China 30 years ago and use that as evidence of China today, ignoring the fact the the country has changed so much over these years.

There are more Asian leaders in the world's top tech companies than there are Europeans. Why do you think that so many Asian people in Asia are able to assume leadership roles and grow their companies at breakneck pace and yet Asian Americans are somehow unfit to do the job in America?

[richmunk567]

As mentioned in the article, the Chinese government itself admits the quality of its patents are suspect and not indicative of true innovation.

It's wonderful how much economic progress China has made, and serious academic progress as well. But that's not relevant here.

China discourages non-ethnic Chinese from having control over Chinese companies, and has extremely few foreigners to begin with so that's not a valid comparison.