This is a very interesting article that makes a large number of very good points, but in the end, I disagree with your conclusions. I also learned a great deal about the political beliefs of Americans of Asian ancestry. They seem to have income and political beliefs that roughly track Jewish Americans.
I do not consider myself a member of the "Tech Right" although I agree with them on many issues and did work for 20 years in the Digital Technology sector. Moreover, I recently wrote an article advocating for a combination of:
1) A complete overhaul of American immigration policy that exclusively allows in highly-skilled workers who can make the greatest contributions to the nation. This means eliminating virtually all other types of legal immigration.
2) Strict enforcement against illegal immigrants both at the border and internally.
One of my major criticisms of the Right (both tech and HBD) is that it does not put enough emphasis on promoting long-term economic growth and upward mobility for the working class. I largely agree with the Right in their cultural opposition to the Left particularly the Woke, but those are not the only issues that matter.
I believe that a skill-based immigration policy is important to promoting economic growth and I am willing to take the chance that an increased number of highly-skilled immigrants from Asia will push the educated classes further to the Left. Either way, we have a fight coming for the political allegiance of the college-educated.
I do not see a zero-immigration policy or anything close to it as politically viable. Even if it were implemented, it would be a short-term fix that would likely revert back to the current situation in later years.
We are either going to have mass immigration of low-skilled workers or mass immigration of high-skilled workers. I think the American people will prefer the latter, and it would be far better for long-term economic and demographic growth.
I don't see how importing people to do high skilled jobs is increasing upward mobility. You're literally just taking the job that the working class kid could've been educated to, at a personal cost of many thousands of dollars in student debt, and giving that job to someone who got his education practically for free in another country.
I never claimed that "importing people to do high skilled jobs is increasing upward mobility."
I don't believe that a typical working-class kid is ever going to be learning complex engineering skills, etc that promote long-term economic growth. That is typically for people with well-above-average intelligence.
There are other far better methods to promote Upward Mobility for working-class kids:
I came to the same conclusion, though I had a very different attitude twenty years ago and used to have a very high opinion of East Asians who I was surrounded by in high school.
First, once they get through the fresh off the boat stage, Asians become very progressive. I've watched it happen to many close friends, regardless of underlying personality type.
Second, Asians tend to be much more nepotistic. I'm surrounded by Indian government contractors in NOVA and the local hospital chain is dominated by Indians. They hire each other and are ruthless about it. As noted, the objection to affirmative action is entirely self interested, they support racial set asides for themselves just not anyone else.
They also tend not to care about the work result. Not that they don't try to perform, but it's not the primary goal. If you follow the process as process and it doesn't work and you get paid, that is all the matters. This is especially toxic when the government is the payer or you have to deal with them as medical providers.
The attitude towards authority, education, and safetyism are very left wing. They all went INSANE during COVID. And the local school district has flipped blue due to their presence and pushes DEI, trans, and just voted for collective bargaining.
On a "GDP" basis I'm supposed to be enamored to live in one of the richests areas in the world, and all these Indians are "adding to GDP". But mostly I hate the effects they have on the local politics and culture, think a lot of the work they do is just government scams they hire each other for, and have been very disappointed with their services as medical providers.
My final observation is that I think East Asians are less of a problem than others groups. East Asians have some of the same issues but are very politically and socially passive and not as nakedly corrupt.
My stance is that there is still way to much top 1% talent in Asia to not try and aggressively recruit it, but I would set the bar high. I'm not particularly interested in bringing in mediocre tier Asians en mass.
>This is not the case for Chinese immigration to the US, which is mostly economically driven.
are you writing this in 2000?
China is poorer on average than USA but it's so much improved and Shanghai is rich.
No, skilled Chinese immigrants usually hate CPC. Chinese Americans are only Asian American group that rates their country of origin negatively. Though, of course, China will try to sneak spies.
China basically forces savings on its people and capital restricts where they can save it. They own a lot of empty homes in a country that will soon have rapidly declining population.
I think we will one day view this relationship the way we view the mercantilism of Spain/Portugal. A bunch of horded gold does not a strong economy make.
For now I think the observation that moving from China to America raises living standards holds true.
We invest significantly into international students as a nation. Spots at top universities, and even upper-middle universities are occupied by international students where they could have had domestic students instead.
It seems like such a waste to exclude graduates from these universities who want to stay in the United States from participating in the economy. Instead, we subject them to the same lottery as the average immigrant, and send many of them back home. It’s like we’re subsidizing China and Indias high-tech sectors, then we wonder why they’re catching up or exceeding the US.
Maybe stamping a green card to every diploma is a bad idea (see Canada’s diploma mills/never graduating “students”), but letting all that human capital go to our rivals, when we’re the ones training up that human capital, is such an obvious waste I can’t see a coherent argument not to fix the problem.
Giving all foreign students green cards will keep all colleges and universities that would have folded as the number of graduating high school students drops afloat. This is not necessarily a good thing, and not good for American students and graduates and not something I am for.
Define "Asian". While we're more likely to find a generic Asian more anti-anti-American than the generic European, it still tends to depend on what country they're from.
In my observation, the differences between a professional Indian national and a professional Chinese national are very marked in terms of cultural priorities and where/how an individual fits into a broader society.
Yes, I would be very interested in seeing more of a breakdown of the “Asian” categories into separate ethnicities and nationalities. My guess is that there are variations within the group.
I'm still not convinced that it's practical to cut off all Asian immigration.
Surely, it should be feasible to only permit high IQ, right-leaning Asians to immigrate to the West. That'd be a great way to gain the best of both worlds.
Lots of issues with this analysis. Just mentioning a couple.
1. Have studies been done on the attitudes and achievements of the different racial groups, but controlled by the culture that surrounds them? Asian immigrants overwhelmingly tend to live on the coasts and in liberal, racially diverse areas. This is partly because these are the places where jobs for immigrants are on offer. But there may also be a sense of insecurity among immigrants about how they will be treated in America, making the choice to live in a racially diverse (and ostensibly tolerant) place more appealing.
Anyway, if you accept that Asians live in liberal enclaves in the US, why would it be surprising that their (and even more so, their children's) views align with those of their liberal neighbors (very much including the whites)?
2. I'm not sure how "innovation" is being measured in these studies. Patents? Starting companies? I know for a fact that Indians (who are counted among Asians) have very high numbers on these measures, especially in the tech industry.
But even setting that aside, why would you be puzzled by the fact that the children of Asian immigrants turn out to be less innovative (in whatever way this is measured) than their parents? I'll reproduce John Adams' quote here: "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." Children of Asian immigrants, who often have high academic standards set by their STEM-immersed parents, quite naturally may react to that pressure and gravitate toward, say, "studying" porcelain when they grow older and have none of the insecurities and hangups of their parents. Give it another generation and you will see a regression back to the real mean of STEM-mindedness.
1. Asian Americans have already penetrated other parts of the US. They don't all live on the coast or in racially diverse areas. Even so, Asian Americans were already majority democrat before the browning of America started accelerating.
Let's be honest, the only reason why Americans even tolerate high levels of skilled immigration is because they associate Asians with innovation. If Asians are, in fact, not disproportionately innovative then the whole case for skilled immigration is more brittle.
Elite Human Capital fears no competition, so all borders and restrictions are anathema to it. It is supremely confident in its own ability to keep winning free speech debates in the US. It views the world through a globalist, not nationalist, prism. Even should it be forced into retreat in the US - as will happen should the Orange Menace seize back the White House - it will keep expanding its intellectual and spiritual dominion elsewhere in the world. The currently backwards countries will be bribed, cajoled, and forced into adopting its values on free speech, libertarianism, and extreme bioliberalism once it is fully unleashed.
What happens when Elite Human Capital decides censorship is necessary? What happens when it can no longer control "democracy" and the lessers vote themselves a dictator?
1--As important as IQ is, there is a lot more to Skill than IQ alone. Depending on the particular type of job: resilience, person-to-person communication, creativity, and 'Polytropos'...the ability to overcome obstacles and *get it done*, whatever it is, *somehow* (the term is from Michael Gibson of 1517 fund, who borrowed it from the Odyssey) can all be important.
2--The discussion has focused on college graduates with careers in engineering--but there are plenty of other important kinds of talent. Right now, for example, there is a serious and increasing shortage of skilled machinists--who aren't, generally speaking, college grads.
3--A successful business doesn't just depend on a few brilliant minds, but also on dozens, hundreds, or thousands of other people who take initiative and responsibility and get things done.
The poverty of Europe and the Anglosphere countries, when controlling for IQ, is massive. If you only look at Europe, the Anglosphere, and East Asia as blocs, there is a negative relationship between GDP per Capita and IQ (this should disappear when you disaggregate by country). Still, whatever America is doing is very good, and whatever these countries are doing is very bad.
Do you think immigration policy is the main cause of the GDP gap?
Europe and the Anglosphere have high rates of immigration, skilled and unskilled, just like the US does. I don't think it's a numbers thing. The absolute best immigrants generally go to the US. Pro-business policies, having top universities and having more large corporations make the US a magnet for elite minds.
I think that the noting the overall net effect of inviting a population that is more culturally aligned with a voluntary acceptance of authoritarianism is accurate: including such a population in the political decision-making process will necessarily drift the midpoint of popular acceptance (Overton window) toward normalizing more authoritarianism. But I think that it's important to separate India from the "other Asian" components because operationally the cultures are more dissimilar than similar. They agree primarily in that they are more comfortable in surrendering to authoritarian trends, but the underlying *reasons*--the deeply emotional ones that define an ethnic ethos--are quite different between an urban, well-educated Indian and a Japanese of similar background.
Too, I'd place limited credence in data from a survey--and especially if this survey is taken in a face-to-face setting, as when a researcher asks respondents directly how they feel. Common sense should tell us that the respondent will *tend* to see the interviewer as representative of authority, and will bend their responses to fit what they think that particular authority wants to hear. I would propose that even in an anonymous setting, the Asian groups you focus on will--again, *tend* to--answer in conformance with what they perceive as what authority prefers, when compared to native Americans of European descent.
I realize this is my speculation and hence not binding; I *do* have some insights into this, however. I raise these issues as points to be discussed/argued further, to possibly gain further insight.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that Japan and Korea are generally better on freedom and capitalism than most of Europe. Nobody in East Asia is getting threatened with jail for saying that men are men. If you fear that immigrants will make our politics more like their country of origin, then logically you should start by banning anyone from the UK. But if a horde of Asians turns the Bay Area into Singapore and starts caning the drug addicts, than everyone wins (probably even the addicts).
People in Japan and Korea covered their faces all day for years.
Look, there is a lot to like about Asia, but “freedom” was never one of them. I could tell that even back when I was really high on Asia. These are very unfree and conformist societies at a very deep level.
Now, maybe you are willing to accept that to get more order and harmony, but you tend not even to get that in the west. Asians aren’t imposing order where they go, they are voting for anti-order leftists. I really think they have little idea how to control non-Asians because shame doesn’t work on blacks and druggies.
The standard Asian response to this stuff if to just work harder and try to price their way out of it personally, not fix it.
San Francisco is already 50% Asian, and yet the city’s drug addiction problems continue spiraling out of control. Why? Asians tend to vote for liberals/democrats. Children of Asian immigrants also enthusiastically take up woke viewpoints that are frowned upon in East Asia
This is a very interesting article that makes a large number of very good points, but in the end, I disagree with your conclusions. I also learned a great deal about the political beliefs of Americans of Asian ancestry. They seem to have income and political beliefs that roughly track Jewish Americans.
I do not consider myself a member of the "Tech Right" although I agree with them on many issues and did work for 20 years in the Digital Technology sector. Moreover, I recently wrote an article advocating for a combination of:
1) A complete overhaul of American immigration policy that exclusively allows in highly-skilled workers who can make the greatest contributions to the nation. This means eliminating virtually all other types of legal immigration.
2) Strict enforcement against illegal immigrants both at the border and internally.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/we-need-a-skills-based-immigration
One of my major criticisms of the Right (both tech and HBD) is that it does not put enough emphasis on promoting long-term economic growth and upward mobility for the working class. I largely agree with the Right in their cultural opposition to the Left particularly the Woke, but those are not the only issues that matter.
I believe that a skill-based immigration policy is important to promoting economic growth and I am willing to take the chance that an increased number of highly-skilled immigrants from Asia will push the educated classes further to the Left. Either way, we have a fight coming for the political allegiance of the college-educated.
I do not see a zero-immigration policy or anything close to it as politically viable. Even if it were implemented, it would be a short-term fix that would likely revert back to the current situation in later years.
We are either going to have mass immigration of low-skilled workers or mass immigration of high-skilled workers. I think the American people will prefer the latter, and it would be far better for long-term economic and demographic growth.
I don't see how importing people to do high skilled jobs is increasing upward mobility. You're literally just taking the job that the working class kid could've been educated to, at a personal cost of many thousands of dollars in student debt, and giving that job to someone who got his education practically for free in another country.
I never claimed that "importing people to do high skilled jobs is increasing upward mobility."
I don't believe that a typical working-class kid is ever going to be learning complex engineering skills, etc that promote long-term economic growth. That is typically for people with well-above-average intelligence.
There are other far better methods to promote Upward Mobility for working-class kids:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-case-for-upward-bound-accounts
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-case-for-a-working-family-tax
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/we-should-phase-out-most-means-tested
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-we-need-more-vocational-education
And I have alot more articles here:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/upward-mobility-the-series
High skilled, intelligent people tend not to have as many children as low skilled workers (if they have children at all)
That is true.
That is not the primary goal of my proposal.
I came to the same conclusion, though I had a very different attitude twenty years ago and used to have a very high opinion of East Asians who I was surrounded by in high school.
First, once they get through the fresh off the boat stage, Asians become very progressive. I've watched it happen to many close friends, regardless of underlying personality type.
Second, Asians tend to be much more nepotistic. I'm surrounded by Indian government contractors in NOVA and the local hospital chain is dominated by Indians. They hire each other and are ruthless about it. As noted, the objection to affirmative action is entirely self interested, they support racial set asides for themselves just not anyone else.
They also tend not to care about the work result. Not that they don't try to perform, but it's not the primary goal. If you follow the process as process and it doesn't work and you get paid, that is all the matters. This is especially toxic when the government is the payer or you have to deal with them as medical providers.
The attitude towards authority, education, and safetyism are very left wing. They all went INSANE during COVID. And the local school district has flipped blue due to their presence and pushes DEI, trans, and just voted for collective bargaining.
On a "GDP" basis I'm supposed to be enamored to live in one of the richests areas in the world, and all these Indians are "adding to GDP". But mostly I hate the effects they have on the local politics and culture, think a lot of the work they do is just government scams they hire each other for, and have been very disappointed with their services as medical providers.
My final observation is that I think East Asians are less of a problem than others groups. East Asians have some of the same issues but are very politically and socially passive and not as nakedly corrupt.
My stance is that there is still way to much top 1% talent in Asia to not try and aggressively recruit it, but I would set the bar high. I'm not particularly interested in bringing in mediocre tier Asians en mass.
>This is not the case for Chinese immigration to the US, which is mostly economically driven.
are you writing this in 2000?
China is poorer on average than USA but it's so much improved and Shanghai is rich.
No, skilled Chinese immigrants usually hate CPC. Chinese Americans are only Asian American group that rates their country of origin negatively. Though, of course, China will try to sneak spies.
The average (median) Chinese family's net worth is 400% more than the average American family.
Carl Icahn: “Net worth of median households is basically nothing. We have major problems in our economy.”
58% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, CNBC survey reveals
US Census: median US household net worth is $97,300. Federal Reserve Consumer Finance Survey
PBOC: median urban household net worth in China is $363,536 PPP.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-04/26/c_139009659.htm
China's GDP/Capita, even on a PPP basis, is $22k. The USA is $76k.
while not disagreeing, he meant family net worth, not GDP, and median, not average.
China has less inequality and more home ownership.
Is this home ownership or hundred year lease?
China basically forces savings on its people and capital restricts where they can save it. They own a lot of empty homes in a country that will soon have rapidly declining population.
I think we will one day view this relationship the way we view the mercantilism of Spain/Portugal. A bunch of horded gold does not a strong economy make.
For now I think the observation that moving from China to America raises living standards holds true.
We invest significantly into international students as a nation. Spots at top universities, and even upper-middle universities are occupied by international students where they could have had domestic students instead.
It seems like such a waste to exclude graduates from these universities who want to stay in the United States from participating in the economy. Instead, we subject them to the same lottery as the average immigrant, and send many of them back home. It’s like we’re subsidizing China and Indias high-tech sectors, then we wonder why they’re catching up or exceeding the US.
Maybe stamping a green card to every diploma is a bad idea (see Canada’s diploma mills/never graduating “students”), but letting all that human capital go to our rivals, when we’re the ones training up that human capital, is such an obvious waste I can’t see a coherent argument not to fix the problem.
Solution: Don't train foreign students. Give those spots to Americans instead.
Giving all foreign students green cards will keep all colleges and universities that would have folded as the number of graduating high school students drops afloat. This is not necessarily a good thing, and not good for American students and graduates and not something I am for.
Define "Asian". While we're more likely to find a generic Asian more anti-anti-American than the generic European, it still tends to depend on what country they're from.
In my observation, the differences between a professional Indian national and a professional Chinese national are very marked in terms of cultural priorities and where/how an individual fits into a broader society.
Yes, I would be very interested in seeing more of a breakdown of the “Asian” categories into separate ethnicities and nationalities. My guess is that there are variations within the group.
I'm still not convinced that it's practical to cut off all Asian immigration.
Surely, it should be feasible to only permit high IQ, right-leaning Asians to immigrate to the West. That'd be a great way to gain the best of both worlds.
Lots of issues with this analysis. Just mentioning a couple.
1. Have studies been done on the attitudes and achievements of the different racial groups, but controlled by the culture that surrounds them? Asian immigrants overwhelmingly tend to live on the coasts and in liberal, racially diverse areas. This is partly because these are the places where jobs for immigrants are on offer. But there may also be a sense of insecurity among immigrants about how they will be treated in America, making the choice to live in a racially diverse (and ostensibly tolerant) place more appealing.
Anyway, if you accept that Asians live in liberal enclaves in the US, why would it be surprising that their (and even more so, their children's) views align with those of their liberal neighbors (very much including the whites)?
2. I'm not sure how "innovation" is being measured in these studies. Patents? Starting companies? I know for a fact that Indians (who are counted among Asians) have very high numbers on these measures, especially in the tech industry.
But even setting that aside, why would you be puzzled by the fact that the children of Asian immigrants turn out to be less innovative (in whatever way this is measured) than their parents? I'll reproduce John Adams' quote here: "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." Children of Asian immigrants, who often have high academic standards set by their STEM-immersed parents, quite naturally may react to that pressure and gravitate toward, say, "studying" porcelain when they grow older and have none of the insecurities and hangups of their parents. Give it another generation and you will see a regression back to the real mean of STEM-mindedness.
1. Asian Americans have already penetrated other parts of the US. They don't all live on the coast or in racially diverse areas. Even so, Asian Americans were already majority democrat before the browning of America started accelerating.
2. Cope
Cope for me or for you? Those second generation folks aren't going "back".
Let's be honest, the only reason why Americans even tolerate high levels of skilled immigration is because they associate Asians with innovation. If Asians are, in fact, not disproportionately innovative then the whole case for skilled immigration is more brittle.
But are asians of 110-120 IQ range more liberal than whites who are 110-120?
"But are asians of 110-120 IQ range more liberal than whites who are 110-120?"
That is a good question. One thing that complicates the answer is the term liberal. It has changed considerably over the last thirty years.
There's no reason not to believe so, if Arctotherium's data is correct.
Elite Human Capital fears no competition, so all borders and restrictions are anathema to it. It is supremely confident in its own ability to keep winning free speech debates in the US. It views the world through a globalist, not nationalist, prism. Even should it be forced into retreat in the US - as will happen should the Orange Menace seize back the White House - it will keep expanding its intellectual and spiritual dominion elsewhere in the world. The currently backwards countries will be bribed, cajoled, and forced into adopting its values on free speech, libertarianism, and extreme bioliberalism once it is fully unleashed.
What happens when Elite Human Capital decides censorship is necessary? What happens when it can no longer control "democracy" and the lessers vote themselves a dictator?
That is excluded in principle. Censorship is antithetical to EHC.
EHC definitely is incredibly fearful of competition and it is often against free speech as shown by opposition on Ivy League campuses.
The reason it might not seem this way is because most immigration is not EHC but cheap labour.
Three points:
1--As important as IQ is, there is a lot more to Skill than IQ alone. Depending on the particular type of job: resilience, person-to-person communication, creativity, and 'Polytropos'...the ability to overcome obstacles and *get it done*, whatever it is, *somehow* (the term is from Michael Gibson of 1517 fund, who borrowed it from the Odyssey) can all be important.
2--The discussion has focused on college graduates with careers in engineering--but there are plenty of other important kinds of talent. Right now, for example, there is a serious and increasing shortage of skilled machinists--who aren't, generally speaking, college grads.
3--A successful business doesn't just depend on a few brilliant minds, but also on dozens, hundreds, or thousands of other people who take initiative and responsibility and get things done.
The poverty of Europe and the Anglosphere countries, when controlling for IQ, is massive. If you only look at Europe, the Anglosphere, and East Asia as blocs, there is a negative relationship between GDP per Capita and IQ (this should disappear when you disaggregate by country). Still, whatever America is doing is very good, and whatever these countries are doing is very bad.
Do you think immigration policy is the main cause of the GDP gap?
Europe and the Anglosphere have high rates of immigration, skilled and unskilled, just like the US does. I don't think it's a numbers thing. The absolute best immigrants generally go to the US. Pro-business policies, having top universities and having more large corporations make the US a magnet for elite minds.
I think that the noting the overall net effect of inviting a population that is more culturally aligned with a voluntary acceptance of authoritarianism is accurate: including such a population in the political decision-making process will necessarily drift the midpoint of popular acceptance (Overton window) toward normalizing more authoritarianism. But I think that it's important to separate India from the "other Asian" components because operationally the cultures are more dissimilar than similar. They agree primarily in that they are more comfortable in surrendering to authoritarian trends, but the underlying *reasons*--the deeply emotional ones that define an ethnic ethos--are quite different between an urban, well-educated Indian and a Japanese of similar background.
Too, I'd place limited credence in data from a survey--and especially if this survey is taken in a face-to-face setting, as when a researcher asks respondents directly how they feel. Common sense should tell us that the respondent will *tend* to see the interviewer as representative of authority, and will bend their responses to fit what they think that particular authority wants to hear. I would propose that even in an anonymous setting, the Asian groups you focus on will--again, *tend* to--answer in conformance with what they perceive as what authority prefers, when compared to native Americans of European descent.
I realize this is my speculation and hence not binding; I *do* have some insights into this, however. I raise these issues as points to be discussed/argued further, to possibly gain further insight.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that Japan and Korea are generally better on freedom and capitalism than most of Europe. Nobody in East Asia is getting threatened with jail for saying that men are men. If you fear that immigrants will make our politics more like their country of origin, then logically you should start by banning anyone from the UK. But if a horde of Asians turns the Bay Area into Singapore and starts caning the drug addicts, than everyone wins (probably even the addicts).
People in Japan and Korea covered their faces all day for years.
Look, there is a lot to like about Asia, but “freedom” was never one of them. I could tell that even back when I was really high on Asia. These are very unfree and conformist societies at a very deep level.
Now, maybe you are willing to accept that to get more order and harmony, but you tend not even to get that in the west. Asians aren’t imposing order where they go, they are voting for anti-order leftists. I really think they have little idea how to control non-Asians because shame doesn’t work on blacks and druggies.
The standard Asian response to this stuff if to just work harder and try to price their way out of it personally, not fix it.
Japanese people cover their faces because they consider it rude to infect their fellow citizens with diseases.
The horror.
San Francisco is already 50% Asian, and yet the city’s drug addiction problems continue spiraling out of control. Why? Asians tend to vote for liberals/democrats. Children of Asian immigrants also enthusiastically take up woke viewpoints that are frowned upon in East Asia
Funnily enough, Bronze Age Pervert (https://open.substack.com/pub/bronzeagepervert/p/race-in-america-and-the-dork-right?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web) made the same argument, without math.
Fantastic article!