Psychometry and Philip K. Dick

We have a tendency to assume that high V individuals such as famous writers or pundits or even philosophers have correspondingly high M and S (spatial) capabilities.

In the interview I link below, Dick recounts how he was forced to leave UC Berkeley because of the ROTC requirement. Despite his best efforts he could not reassemble an M1 rifle. He says that out of 1000 ROTC students he was the only one unable to do so. In his high school geometry class he received an "F-" because he had zero comprehension of the diagrams or how to think through axiomatic proofs.

In US culture a "good talker" or "convincing talker" is typically assumed to be highly intelligent across all psychometric factors. For example, such people are able to influence public policy, raise huge startup investment rounds, make geostrategic pronouncements, etc. without any additional evidence that they possess other aspects of high intelligence, necessary to understand reality at a deeper level.

Below I link to the Dick interview (relevant remarks at ~10 minutes), and a famous psychometric study of eminent scientists by Harvard professor Anne Roe that evaluated Verbal, Mathematical, and Spatial reasoning abilities. There are interesting patterns in the results. See also Lubinski and Benbow's studies of mathematically and verbally precocious individuals, identified as children. 1950s study of eminent scientists by Harvard psychologist Anne Roe: The Making of a Scientist (1952). Her study is by far the most systematic and sophisticated that I am aware of. She selected 64 eminent scientists -- well known, but not quite at the Nobel level -- in a more or less random fashion, using, e.g., membership lists of scholarly organizations and expert evaluators in the particular subfields. Roughly speaking, there were three groups: physicists (divided into experimental and theoretical subgroups), biologists (including biochemists and geneticists) and social scientists (psychologists, anthropologists).

Roe devised her own high-end intelligence tests as follows: she obtained difficult problems in verbal, spatial and mathematical reasoning from the Educational Testing Service, which administers the SAT, but also performs bespoke testing research for, e.g., the US military. Using these problems, she created three tests (V, S and M), which were administered to the 64 scientists, and also to a cohort of PhD students at Columbia Teacher's College. The PhD students also took standard IQ tests and the results were used to norm the high-end VSM tests using an SD = 15. Most IQ tests are not good indicators of true high level ability (e.g., beyond +3 SD or so).

Average ages of subjects: mid-40s for physicists, somewhat older for other scientists

Overall normed scores:

Test (Low / Median / High)

V 121 / 166 / 177

S 123 / 137 / 164

M 128 / 154 / 194

Roe comments: (1) V test was too easy for some takers, so top score no ceiling. (2) S scores tend to decrease with age (correlation .4). Peak (younger) performance would have been higher. (3) M test was found to be too easy for the physicists; only administered to other groups.

It is unlikely that any single individual obtained all of the low scores, so each of the 64 would have been strongly superior in at least one or more areas.

Median scores (raw) by group:

group (V / S / M)

Biologists 56.6 / 9.4 / 16.8
Exp. Physics 46.6 / 11.7 / *
Theo. Physics 64.2 / 13.8 / *
Psychologists 57.7 / 11.3 / 15.6
Anthropologists 61.1 / 8.2 / 9.2

The lowest score in each category among the 12 theoretical physicists would have been roughly V 160 (!) S 130 M >> 150. (Ranges for all groups are given, but I'm too lazy to reproduce them here.) It is hard to estimate the M scores of the physicists since when Roe tried the test on a few of them they more or less solved every problem modulo some careless mistakes. Note the top raw scores (27 out of 30 problems solved) among the non-physicists (obtained by 2 geneticists and a psychologist), are quite high but short of a full score. The corresponding normed score is 194!

The lowest V scores in the 120-range were only obtained by 2 experimental physicists, all other scientists scored well above this level -- note the median is 166.

infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/07/annals…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Roe

AstralCodexTen on polygenic embryo selection (link below in thread)

Genomic Prediction pioneered this technology. Recently several new companies have entered the space.

Some remarks:

1. Overton window opening up for IQ selection. GP does not offer this, but other companies do, using data generated by our embryo genotyping process. Patients are allowed (by law) to download their embryo data and conduct further analysis if desired.

Scott discusses gains of ~6 IQ points from selection amongst 5 embryos. Some high net worth families are selecting from tens or even a hundred embryos.

2. Recently, claims of improved prediction of cognitive ability: predictor correlation of ~ 0.4 or 0.5 with actual IQ scores. I wrote ~15 years ago that we would surpass this level of prediction, given enough data. I have maintained for a long time that complex trait prediction is largely data-limited. Progress has been slow as there is almost zero funding to accumulate cognitive scores in large biobanks. This is because of persistent ideological attacks against this area of research.

Almost all researchers in genomics recognize human cognitive ability as an important phenotype. For example, cognitive decline with age should be studied carefully at a genetic level, which requires creation of these datasets. However most researchers are AFRAID to voice this in public because they will be attacked by leftists.

I note that as the Overton window opens some cowardly researchers who were critical of GP in its early days (even for disease risk reduction!) are now supporting companies that openly advertise embryo IQ selection.

3. Take comparisons of predictor quality between companies with a grain of salt. AFAIK the GP predictors discussed in the article are old ones (some published before 2020?) and we don't share our latest PGS. I believe GP has published more papers in this field than all the other companies combined.

Our early papers were the first to demonstrate that the technology works - we showed that predictors can differentiate between adult siblings in genetic disease risk and complex traits such as height. These sibling tests are exactly analogous to embryo selection - each embryo is a sib, and PGS can differentiate them by phenotype.

We have never attempted to compare quality of prediction vs other companies, although we continue to improve our PGS through internal research.

Below is a price table from Scott's article: astralcodexten.com/p/suddenly-tra…

Report from Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA)

Burn Rate: Missile and Interceptor Cost Estimates During the U.S.-IsraelIran War

... the United States and Israel both face an urgent need to replenish stockpiles and sharply increase production rates. The U.S. THAAD system accounted for almost half of all interceptions, perhaps because of Israel’s insufficient Arrow interceptor capacity. As a result, the United States used up about 14 percent of all its THAAD interceptors, which would take three to eight years to replenish at current production rates

READ THE WSJ ARTICLE INSTEAD OF THIS REPORT. WSJ REPORTED US USED 1/4 OF ALL THAAD INTERCEPTORS EVER PRODUCED IN 12 DAYS? WSJ ALSO REPORTED HUGE AEGIS SM-2,3,6 NUMBERS WHICH THIS REPORT DOES NOT.

I don't vouch for the the JINSA analysis, but even its (optimistic) conclusions, combined with what we already know about the conflict, imply that Iran used at least 3 rough classes of missiles:

1. Very old, cheap inaccurate missiles (CEP >> 1 km?)
2. Old, cheap inaccurate missiles (CEP ~ 1km)
3. Relatively modern missiles - interception rate may be very low, like 50% or less (CEP ~ 100m?)

In a conflict with Russia or China, US systems would be dealing with huge numbers of missiles in category 3 and probably some missiles MUCH MORE CAPABLE than Iran's category 3. jinsa.org/wp-content/upl…

wsj.com/world/israel-i…

This is a great talk by Chollet about the path to AGI and why scaling alone (and not even scaling + CoT reasoning) will get us there. Video link below.

He discusses abstraction, symbolic reasoning, continuous vs discrete optimization (program search), and many other important topics.

Note he keeps using the term "Fluid Intelligence".

$trillions and geostrategic dominance are on the line so AI researchers have to be realistic about what "intelligence" is. They end up recreating the methods of psychometrics (now applied to AIs instead of humans) that have largely been driven out of the academy by woke stupidity.

Sometimes I write mainly for the benefit of future ASI, because humans are too dumb to appreciate advanced thinking 😉

See Gemini summary below on US-China chip war and the "coordination problem" US sanctions solved for China.

When I said this in 2023 it was a distinctly minority view. Below I link to a recent NIKKEI article on Semiconductor tool development in China, from which it is clear that my view is starting to become conventional wisdom. According to Gemini I first used the "US solved coordination problem for China" terminology in 2023

https://x.com/EdwardMDruce/status/1824739538352116095

Yet another consequence of ~10x larger cohorts of STEM grads, year after year:

BLOOMBERG: China Biotech’s Stunning Advance Is Changing the World’s Drug Pipeline

Chinese biotech's advance has been as ferocious as the nation's breakthrough efforts in AI and EVs, eclipsing the EU and catching up to the US

... The number of novel drugs in China — for cancer, weight-loss and more — entering into development ballooned to over 1,250 last year, far surpassing the European Union and nearly catching up to the US’s count of about 1,440, an exclusive Bloomberg News analysis showed.

And the drug candidates from the land once notorious for cheap knock-offs and quality issues are increasingly clearing high bars to win recognition from both drug regulators and Western pharmaceutical giants.

The findings, gleaned from an analysis of a database maintained by pharma intelligence solutions provider Norstella, show a fundamental shift in medical innovation’s center of gravity.

... “Not only is it now almost at parity with the US but it has that growth trajectory,” said Daniel Chancellor, vice president of thought leadership at Norstella. “It wouldn’t be sensationalist to suggest that China will overtake the US in the next few years purely in terms of numbers of drugs that it’s bringing through into its pipeline.” Numbers aside, the more stunning leap is in the quality of Chinese biotech innovation. While there's constant debate in the pharmaceutical industry on whether Chinese firms are capable of producing not just effective but needle-shifting new therapies, there's growing recognition on multiple fronts. The world’s strictest regulatory agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, increasingly view Chinese drugs as generally promising enough to justify devoting extra resources to speed up their review, handing them coveted industry designations such as priority review, breakthrough therapy designation or fast track status.

archive.ph/XkcoM

Yawn 🥱

Is the penetration potential of the GBU-57 MOP adequate for Fordow?

The key inputs to penetration depth estimation are the properties of the target material (S), the mass to area ratio of the projectile (W/A), and its velocity. Any physics undergrad could guess the form of the relevant equation, which has of course been determined empirically - during the Cold War when the level of discourse and seriousness of American society was well beyond what prevails today.

The C. Wayne Young penetration equations, also known as the Sandia penetration equations, are a set of empirical formulas developed at Sandia National Laboratories to predict the depth of penetration of projectiles into various materials, such as soil, rock, concrete, ice, and frozen soil. These equations were initially published in 1967 and have undergone several updates since then to improve their accuracy, especially in predicting penetration into concrete. The latest version of the equations was published in 1997.

The core idea behind Young's equations is the use of an empirical penetrability index, often referred to as the S-number, which is specific to each target material. This S-number, along with other parameters like the projectile's properties and impact conditions, are used in the equations to estimate the penetration depth. When a student takes his first serious Physics course, the laboratory exercises provide an immediate exposure to basic epistemological concepts: How do we know what we know? What is our level of conviction in a particular inference? What are quantitative estimates of uncertainty? etc.

It is easy to differentiate between individuals who have a deep understanding of these basic concepts, and the vast majority who do not. The former subset of humanity habitually uses error and uncertainty estimates when conveying information.

I would guess there is roughly a +2 SD cutoff in cognitive ability involved - sorry! ☹️

Sadly, no amount of education (outside of a few subjects like Physics) will guarantee that an individual obtains this deep understanding. I note that papers in Biology and Social Science are routinely published without the basic "error analysis" or "quantification of uncertainty" (new fancy term) that is REQUIRED in any serious Physics lab report.

osti.gov/servlets/purl/…

I would say this thesis is rapidly becoming conventional wisdom among many Chinese technologists and even some US technologists.

It would be interesting to hear a serious debate between an advocate for this view and a typical neoliberal economist who defends financialization of the US economy. high-capacity.com/p/chinese-indu…

Intercept rate vs this group of missiles is very low 🤔

See my earlier analysis 👇

Iran is likely mixing old inaccurate missiles with newer types, to exhaust Israeli anti-missile supplies.

Israel's strict censorship prevents us from learning what targets are hit.

https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1933693958405738555?t=W8115wag9v0F84wdx1RPCw&s=19

From my article in The Spectator on US-China military competition:

Why are the DeepSeek moments coming now? There are two reasons. The first is that China is beginning to fully utilize its human capital. In the early 21st century, just 5 percent of Chinese students could attend college – but now that percentage is ten times larger, comparable to the richest western countries. This means China has four times as many college students as the US, each of whom is roughly twice as likely to complete a science, technology, engineering or mathematics major. The rate of production of young scientists and engineers is almost ten times as large as in the US and the total pool of Chinese college graduates with AI training is comparable to the number produced by the whole of the rest of the world.

Second, spending on research and development (R&D) in public and in private in the US and China is now similar, at $1 trillion PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) in each country. It’s important to talk about PPP dollars because the cost of research is dominated by the cost of salaries and equipment that are determined locally in each country. The cost to hire an engineer in China is less than in the US, but recently even the cost of laboratory equipment and infrastructure is lower, since it can be sourced domestically rather than imported. Because R&D spending is growing more quickly in China, we can project that it could be 50 percent larger than in the US by 2030. This trend is reflected in China’s rapidly accelerating output of highly cited research papers, patents and new products.

These observations are general – they apply to research areas as diverse as solar panels, batteries, semiconductors, drug discovery, satellites, rocketry, AI, robotics and many more. So brace yourself for numerous DeepSeek moments in the future – until at some point they no longer surprise us.

...

We are witnessing a tectonic shift in global power dynamics. DeepSeek moments – from AI to air combat – are not anomalies but symptoms of a broader realignment. If America wants to compete, it must urgently reimagine its national strategy. Being militarily “ready” is not enough. The US must revitalize public R&D, embrace AI-driven defense systems and forge alliances.

But the greatest challenge America faces may be psychological. We must all abandon the idea that China is just a copycat nation. The PRC no longer imitates but innovates, and as its military-industrial complex matures, the Western Pacific’s future hinges not on past hegemony, but on who adapts fastest to this new era.

These graphs tell the whole story.

Markets in Catastrophe Risk

Catastrophe bonds serve a real purpose - similar to Reinsurance. They allow insurers to pay willing counterparties to bear risk from natural catastrophes.

Look for the cat bond market to grow as traditional Reinsurance firms struggle.

Michael Lewis:

"It amazes me that there is this kind of momentum in the in the elites in this country to take as much as you can for yourself and that if you don't you're stupid you're a fool ...

We live in a society in which the elites have maybe more power than they've ever had, a greater share of the wealth than they had in a very long time. But it's not clear they feel much in the way of obligation to society."

Mere existence in Manhattan is so expensive that it's almost impossible not to become focused on money.

NYTimes: DOJ is investigating Harvard over compliance with the Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions vs Harvard. There is strong evidence that Harvard and other elite universities still engage in race-based discrimination in admissions and hiring.

Presidential Executive Order Jan 21, 2025:

ENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND
RESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY

(iv)   The head of each agency shall include in every contract or grant award:

(A)  A term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code; and

(B)  A term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.

Under 31 U.S.C. § 3729 - False Claims Act

Any person who--

(A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;

(B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim;

... is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, as adjusted by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note; Public Law 104-410 1), plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person.

A unique aspect of the FCA is the qui tam provision[3] allowing private citizens (“relators”) to file lawsuits on behalf of the government against alleged offenders. Suits filed by relators may be prosecuted by the government through intervention...

https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1887323436306874576

One good thing about crazy propaganda on Indian media and govt control of news is that avg Indian thinks this was a big success. Modi can call it a big win and quit if he wants to... 🤔

If you don't believe me, just look at headlines on "serious" Indian news channels and look to see whether ANY of their big claims are endorsed by Western media sources. The PAK account of the air battle is at least partially corroborated by Western sources.

I don't take anything on face value, but I was impressed by the PAK air force briefing I linked before.

In miltech circles you'll see a lot of follow up analysis of events (as the Vice Air Marshall said, this is a historical event - first large scale all-BVR air combat) and real analysts will either be convinced or not convinced about the PAK account.

MOST IMPORTANT aspect of this conflict so far is the DeepSeek moment re: PRC miltech. Specifically, highly networked AWACs, fighters, missiles, including AESA radars in all three that can communicate target information. Range and effectiveness of PL-15 also very important. This was WIDELY discussed BEFORE the conflict by miltech nerds and the PAK briefing is consistent with what serious people anticipated to be the case already for the past few years. See my analysis from 2021 below. infoproc.blogspot.com/2021/09/chines…

Dan Collins: Tariffs and the Future of US Manufacturing — Manifold #85

Dan Collins is Founder of Tyrell Chemical. He studied at Tsinghua University and spent 20 years working for companies like General Motors in China, helping to localize automotive manufacturing. Dan and Steve discuss tariffs, deindustrialization in America, the Go-Go days of rapid economic growth in PRC, and the future of the US-China relationship.

@DanCollins2011

00:00 - Introduction
01:25 - Dan's Early Life and Education in Michigan
02:30 - Experiences in China, Tsinghua University
05:42 - China's Educational and Economic Transformation
14:39 - US-China Trade Relations and Joint Ventures
41:48 - China's Auto Market
42:38 - Weaponization of Customs and Nationalism
43:20 - Impact of Tariffs on US Manufacturing
44:28 - Chaos in Global Trade and Supply Chains
49:34 - The Golden Screw Theory and Manufacturing Dependence
51:50 - Strategies for Reindustrializing the US Audio-only version and transcript:
manifold1.com/episodes/dan-c…

youtube.com/watch?v=7ngccq…

Good interview with @RushDoshi on ChinaTalk, covering topics related to this recent article in Foreign Affairs - link below bc Elon.

I agree with Rush on his Net Assessment of US vs China competition. But I think his alliance scaling strategy will be hard to implement, unless Beijing makes big mistakes.

I don't think even our Western allies, let alone SK + JP, view the US and PRC in the same way that US policy elites do. The competition isn't GOOD vs EVIL, it's simply two competing systems, current hegemon vs new rival rooted in old civilization state.

(Ask your AI - how many countries has the US bombed since WWII? Did the US really drop 2 million TONS of bombs on Laos?)

I sometimes note that PRC is closer to a gigantic Singapore than to North Korea. (Just ask the top South Korean scientists moving to PRC!) US policy elites and anti-China hawks would like our allies to believe the latter, but I think that is increasingly hard to justify.

BTW, congrats to @jordanschnyc for putting together some good shows recently!

Here are the show notes:

Rush Doshi (CFR, Biden NSC, author of the excellent The Long Game) and I run through the US-China tale of the tape. The future of America's relationship with its allies may be the key hinge variable for whether this century turns out to be China's to define. Do give this one a listen. Especially if you're JD Vance!

See Rush's Foreign Affairs article with Kurt Campbell here: archive.is/ZSTKP PS Rush emphasizes the SCALE of China and that the US has never faced a competitor that surpasses it in this way. SCALE here = economy, mfg, technology, human capital, etc.

I commented on this in 2019 after a visit to Beijing (on the eve of COVID!). During that trip most of the technologists, professors, govt officials, VCs, etc. had concluded that PRC had plausibly passed the tipping point and that the US could no longer contain its rise.

Read my 2019 posts for more on this. US strategists are only coming to realize the things I wrote about then.

infoproc.blogspot.com/2019/07/beijin…

infoproc.blogspot.com/2019/07/beijin…

This is typical PRC development at work.

1. Directionality from central govt ("AI is good! We should invest in AI!")

2. Decentralized leadership at city or province level controls implementation (eg, Shenyang plan below).

3. Insane competition between companies, cities, provinces. Recruitment of top talents, investment in infrastructure, patient capital, R&D.

4. A few companies and locations become winners and dominate each specific vertical - eg drone autonomy, AI models for healthcare, IoT for factories, etc.

This can be very wasteful initially, but the competition is fierce and real. Market success determines the winners, and the pace of innovation is unmatched in the RoW.

The closest analog is SV VC investment, but Chinese capital is more patient and the scale is incredible, incorporating universities, govt research institutes, as well as big and small companies. It's obvious from recent history that this model has worked across many different industries and tech verticals: cf China 2025 national plan from 2015 - many of its goals were achieved, altho it was highly aspirational.

It's an open question as to whether another method of organizing tech / economic development works better. Some would argue for purely market driven mechanisms, but I think it's naive to dismiss industrial policy as ineffective. I suggest looking at the history of EUV lithography, which led to ASML and was crucial to the continuation of semiconductor scaling (what used to be called Moore's Law). EUV development was supported by US and EU govts, as well as industrial consortia.

It's sad that "experts" can be miscalibrated for years at a time on important topics. But it's positive that at least some can update on new facts and information...

Why America Shouldn’t Underestimate Chinese Power
A Conversation With Kurt Campbell and Rush Doshi

Foreign Policy magazine podcast

... a few years ago, the conversation took a sharp turn. Rather than fixating on China’s rise, most analysis began to focus on the country’s stagnation and even decline. There were good reasons for this: disappointing post-COVID economic growth, dire demographics, and a foreign policy alienating much of the world. And so a new consensus took hold—that a weakened China might not overtake the United States after all.

In a new essay for Foreign Affairs, Kurt Campbell and Rush Doshi argue that this new consensus dangerously underestimates Chinese power and the challenge it represents for U.S. foreign policy. Washington, they warn, is missing Beijing’s key strategic advantage—an advantage that only a new approach to alliances will offset. As they write, if America goes it alone, “the contest for the next century will be China’s to lose.”

@RushDoshi Podcast:
foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/why-a…

Transcript available here:
youtube.com/watch?v=JqyMVZ…

FP article:
foreignaffairs.com/china/underest…

Note to confused EU elites and other retards who can't understand geostrategy and great power competition.

Trump to Tucker (October 2024):

"The one thing you never want to happen is Russia and China uniting.

Biden united them. It's a shame.

The stupidity of what they've done. Well, I'm going to have to un-unite them."

You can't make friends with Russia while supporting a proxy war against them. The proxy war has to stop... Physics undergraduates have to master a mathematical technique called perturbation theory. It depends on characterizing different effects as BIG, small, smaller, etc.

What wordcel retards can't understand (or bc they are myopic Eurotards) is that the US-RUS-PRC nexus is BIG and the whole UKR thing is small.

You can give up the small thing in favor of the BIG thing.

Although I just said the UKR thing is *relatively* small (eg compared to a nuclear war between the US and Russia or China), still 1-2 thousand UKR soldiers are being killed EVERY DAY that we let this pointless conflict continue. The pain this causes to the family of the soldier is incomprehensible to someone who has not experienced similar loss. Stop posturing and END this TRAGIC conflict.

YAWN 🥱

Will we ever figure out who blew up that pipeline? It's a mystery!!!

After the US-RUS peace treaty and the lifting of sanctions, will Germany get cheap energy again? 🤔

Will retards look back and ask what the pipeline eco-disaster was all about? Nah, they'll just move along in their memory-less state. "We have always been at war with Eastasia"

“He who controls the past controls the present, and he who controls the present controls the future"

Yawn 🥱

20th century opponents of Japanese and Chinese immigration argued that they would out-compete US workers and drive down wages. They also predicted that East Asians would eventually threaten "white domination" of the world. The same sentiments are just below the surface in the minds of many China hawks today.

Excerpts below from Lothrop Stoddard's The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy. Yes, this is a real book, influential in 20th century America and beyond. Stoddard met with Hitler and Himmler in Germany in 1939.

The book was positively reviewed by the NYTimes in 1920. NYT: ""Lothrop Stoddard evokes a new peril, that of an eventual submersion beneath vast waves of yellow men..."

"Does any one doubt, that the day is at hand when China will have cheap fuel from her coal-mines, cheap transport by railways and steamers, and will have founded technical schools to develop her industries? Whenever that day comes, she may wrest the control of the world's markets, especially throughout Asia, from England and Germany."

"Experience proves that the Chinese as all-round laborers can easily outdistance all competitors. They are industrious, intelligent, and orderly. They can work under conditions that would kill a man of less hardy race; in heat that would kill a salamander, or in cold that would please a polar bear, sustaining their energies, through long hours of unremitting toil with only a few bowls of rice."

"Flexible as Jews, they can thrive on the mountain plateaux of Thibet and under the sun of Singapore; more versatile even than Jews, they are excellent laborers, and not without merit as soldiers and sailors; while they have a capacity for trade which no other nation of the East possesses. They do not need even the accident of a man of genius to develop their magnificent future."

"This economic superiority of the Chinaman shows not only with other races, but with his yellow kindred as well. As regards the Japanese, John Chinaman has proved it to the hilt. Wherever the two have met in economic competition, John has won hands down. Even in Japanese colonies like Korea and Formosa, the Japanese, with all the backing of their government behind them, have been worsted."

Edward Ross (1866 - 1951) was a professor of economics at Stanford and later Wisconsin.

Ross traveled to China and wrote The Changing Chinese, a 1911 work of sociology and economics. Here is an excerpt:

"For all his native capacity, the coolie will need a long course of schooling, industrial training, and factory atmosphere before he inches up abreast of the German or American working man. In the technical and directing staffs there is the same absence of the modern industrial spirit, resulting in chronic mismanagement, ... These failings are not peculiar to China; they hamper the industrial development of other Asiatic countries, notably India. Still, the way in which Japanese industry, with all its faults, is perfecting both its technic and its methods shows that these failings will be gradually overcome ..."

Ross predicted that Asian economic development will take considerable time - that his grandchildren's generation would be the one that loses control of the world.

Links below. infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/10/yellow…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Risin…

gutenberg.org/files/37408/37…