東亞人是否智商很高？東亞人在近代對人類文明的貢獻，與白種人相比如何？

01-15

有一種說法是由於智商的分布曲線，歐美人兩級分化嚴重，所以他們在平均智商不如東亞人的情況下，出天才的機率更高。
還有一種說法是由於歐洲人在黑死病後，大量低智商的人都死了（比如英國有50%的人死亡），當然低智商的窮人的死亡率更高。結果是高智商的人和高智商的人進入城市，他們繁衍了更多高智商的人。所以導致之後歐洲的文藝復興和宗教改革，他們也改變了世界。
當然還有文化因素的，比如說東亞人的性格，他們本身的文化阻礙創新等等。
所以想知道到底是什麼因素影響了智商更高的東亞人在對人類文明的貢獻上不如白種人？
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

好的，如下所要求，附上出處【中文字幕】為什麼智商更高的東亞人創造力不如白種人？
這個是國外的人認可的，東亞人的的平均智商比白人更高東亞人平均智商126，白人100，黑人80 國外也有很多研究都在美國大學裡的亞裔人的科學水平的測試，都是高於白人的，這些直接的資料大可去google一下。
其次，東亞人對人類文明的貢獻上不如白種人，顯而易見，近代改變世界的大部分科技發明都是白人完成的，以及各種經濟理論，社會學理論也基本上都是白人完成的。可能在這之前，東亞人也對世界文明作出了貢獻（比如四大發明），但是像近代歐洲對世界這麼顛覆性的改變，我想這不是四大發明可以對比的。

俗話說得好，一切不問是不是就問為什麼的都是耍流氓。

東亞人是否智商更高？東亞人創造力是否不如白種人？

題主能否先把這兩個問題搞清楚呢？

最後的那個問題也值得商榷：東亞人是否在對人類文明的貢獻上不如白種人？

並且，提問內容里的各路觀點是否有出處？請附上一併討論。

我們首先要明確一點：

當我們說創造力的時候，一般的理解是，一種純粹的個人能力，一種純粹的大腦的機能。

然而，現實是：一個社會的「創造力」不只包括個人的創造性，還包括

⒈形成創新想法的文化基礎

你就算再聰明，智商再高，創造力再強，不長在愛因斯坦那個時代和科研環境里，你也發明不了相對論吧。

⒉將個人的想法變成現實的文化產品的環境。

你就算有再好的想法，如果整個社會沒有合適的工業基礎去將你的想法變成產品也沒用吧。古代人再有創造力也發明不了電飯鍋吧，就算你思維超越時代，想到了電飯鍋的原理，沒有電，你也發明不了電飯鍋吧。

科學這種東西，作為一種工具，使得人類能用它創造出更多、更神奇的東西

用photoshop的人和用Windows自帶繪圖軟體的人，在創作能力上自然會有巨大的差別，但這種差距，是工具的差異帶來的。

掌握科技的人與不掌握科技的人，在創造力上當然有巨大的差異，但這種差異不能直接等同於大腦機能上的差異

.可是一定會有人跳出來說，雖然如此，但為什麼科學偏偏就出現在白人社會裡，而沒有出現在其他種族的社會裡呢？這還不能證明什麼嗎？

確實不能，因為科學的出現，伴隨有很大的不可測因素，沒有什麼大腦層面的原因會決定科學一定出現在西方社會。

所以，白人發明創造了絕大多數的改變世界的科技和理論，是證明了白人的個體更具有創造力，還是證明了白人的社會文化更具有創造性？

民族的創造力更多的在於社會制度而不是人種。

任何一個人種，都有聰明的個體和愚蠢的個體。他們在社會上的分工不同，起到的作用也不一樣。而發明這種事，聰明是一方面，機緣巧合也很重要。但是更重要的是。是否鼓勵發明，社會能否選拔出有用的發明（很多，甚至絕大多數發明是無用的）。

在封建割據和現代資本主義框架下。發明一旦可以帶來利益。那麼就可以被鼓勵。發明本身也可以變成實體。可是在社會主義和皇帝制度下。統治者最為關心的是社會穩定，而發明則會帶來變革，本質上是對穩定不利的。自然會被捨棄。

東亞文明以中國為中心。本質上是皇帝制度/社會主義的。當然目前日本和韓國已經改變了社會制度。而同時。日本對世界的科技貢獻和影響力也在逐漸增大。

關於東亞人的文明歷史，以下是 Philippe Rushton 在其著作 Race Evolution Behavior （全文下載：http://lazypawn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf）提到的相關描述：

Race in History

Even before there were any intelligence tests, philosophers, statesmen, merchants, and others

thought there was a link between race, intelligence, and cultural achievement. Aristotle, Plato, Voltaire,

and David Hume all believed this. So did Broca, Darwin, Galton, and all the founders of evolution and

anthropology. Even Freud believed in some race differences. But this began to change in the 1920s with

Franz Boas and James B. Watson, who believed that culture could change just about anything. Today,

writers like Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel (1997) and S. J. Gould in The Mismeasure of Man

(1996) tell us there is no link between race, intelligence, and culture. The differences we see are all just

because of bad luck or White racism.

The first explorers in East Africa wrote that they were shocked by the nudity, paganism,

cannibalism, and poverty of the natives. Some claimed Blacks had the nature "of wild animals... most of

them go naked... the child does not know his father, and they eat people." Another claimed they had a

natural sense of rhythm so that if a Black "were to fall from heaven to earth he would beat time as he goes

down." A few even wrote books and made paintings of Africans with over-sized sex organs.

Sound familiar? All just a reflection of racism? Maybe so, but these examples are not from 19th

Century European colonialists or KKK hate literature. They come from the Muslim Arabs who first

entered Black Africa over 1,200 years ago (in the 700s), as detailed in Bernard Lewis』s 1990 book, Race

and Slavery in the Middle East.

Several hundred years later, European explorers had the same impressions. They wrote that

Africans seemed to have a very low intelligence and few words to express complex thoughts. They

praised some tribes for making fine pottery, forging iron, carving wooden art, and making musical

instruments. But more often, they were shocked by the near nakedness of the people, their poor sanitary

habits, simple houses, and small villages. They found no wheels for making pots, grinding corn, or for

transport, no farm animals, no writing, no money, and no numbering systems.

The Whites who explored China were just as racist as those who explored Africa, but their

descriptions were different from what they and the Arabs had written about Africans. In 1275 Marco Polo

arrived in China from his native Italy to open trade with the Mongol Empire. He found that the Chinese

had well built roads, bridges, cities connected by canals, census takers, markets, standardized weights and

measures, and not only coins, but paper money as well. Even a postal system was in existence. All of

these made him marvel when he compared the Chinese to what he saw in Europe and the Middle East.

Even though he was an Italian, proud of his people and well aware of the greatness of Ancient Rome,

Marco Polo wrote: "Surely there is no more intelligent race on earth than the Chinese."

Historical research bears out Marco Polo』s impressions. As early as 360 B.C., the Chinese used

the cross bow and changed the face of warfare. Around 200-100 B.C., the Chinese used written exams to

choose people for the civil service, two thousand years before Britain. The Chinese used printing about

800 A.D., some 600 years before Europe saw Gutenberg』s first Bible. Paper money was used in China in

1300, but not in Europe until the 19th and 20th centuries. By 1050 Chinese chemists had made

gunpowder, hand grenades, fire arrows, and rockets of oil and poison gas. By 1100, factories in China

with 40,000 workers were making rockets. Flame throwers, guns, and cannons were used in China by the

13th century, about 100 years before Europe.

The Chinese used the magnetic compass as early as the 1st century. It is not found in European

records until 1190. In 1422, seventy years before Columbus』s three small ships crossed the Atlantic, the

Chinese reached the east coast of Africa. They came in a great fleet of 65 ocean going ships filled with

27,000 soldiers and their horses, and a year』s supply of grain, meat, and wine. With their gunpowder

weapons, navigation, accurate maps and magnetic compasses, the Chinese could easily have gone around

the tip of Africa and 「discovered」 Europe!

In the last five centuries, the European nations leapfrogged over the Chinese in science and

technology. Since 1950, however, Japan has beaten the West in the production of many high-tech

products. Other Pacific Rim countries (China, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea) now follow Japan』s

path. Africa, on the other hand, has fallen further behind. The poor conditions of African countries and

Black America have become a concern to many. Much of the optimism of the U.S. Civil Rights

movement of the 1960s is gone, along with the high hopes for independent African nations. Trillions of

dollars of foreign aid have poured into Africa. Yet African economies have declined since the Europeans

left.

Neglect and decay are seen everywhere in Africa and much of the West Indies. International

corporations often have to provide their own power, their own water, and their own phones. In the age of

computers, fax machines, and the world wide web, getting a dial tone in many African cities is difficult.

東亞人智商為什麼高？——還是引用 Philippe Rushton 在其著作 Race Evolution Behavior 提到的相關解答（別嫌多，本來就不是簡單的問題，讀不懂理解不了的建議檢討下自己的智商，為了幫助大家理解，我幫大家划了個答案相關重點，建議大家還是把 Race Evolution Behavior 整本書讀完，因為很多我未貼出的上下文有助於對樓主的問題的理解）：

Out of Africa

The latest theory of human origins -- Out-of-

Africa -- provides the final piece to the

puzzle. It explains why r-K theory accounts

for race differences in body, brain, and

behavior. As races moved out of Africa they

evolved away from r-type behaviors and

toward K-type. Moving out of Africa meant

increasing brain size and IQ, but

lowering reproduction, aggression

and sexual activity.

Based on his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin thought Africa was 「the cradle of mankind.」

He did not have any fossils from Africa to support his theory but he concluded that humans came from

Africa based on watching the chimpanzee and the gorilla. If the African apes were our closest living

relatives, it made sense that humans first evolved on the only continent where all three species lived.

Evidence from genetics, the fossil record, and archaeology have since all proved Darwin correct.

The human line began with the African fossil species called Australopithecus. Later human ancestors

Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens also appeared first in Africa.

Homo sapiens were fully human. They were in Africa less than 200,000 years ago. Moving to the

Middle East about 100,000 years ago, they then spread out across the world. They replaced the

Neanderthal and Homo erectus groups they met either by fighting or competing for food.

When modern humans left Africa they began to develop the racial traits we see today by adapting

to the new regions and climates. The first split in the human line took place about 100,000 years ago

between groups that remained in Africa (ancestors to modern Blacks) and those who left Africa. Then

about 40,000 years ago the group that left Africa divided once again, into the ancestors of today』s Whites

and Orientals.

This history of moving first out of Africa into Europe and then later into East Asia explains why

Whites fall in between Orientals and Blacks on the life history variables.The split between Africans and

non-Africans happened first, almost twice as early as the split between Orientals and Whites.

The Out of Africa theory explains the good fit between the r-K life history traits and race

differences. It is hard to survive in Africa. Africa has unpredictable droughts and deadly diseases that

spread quickly. More Africans than Asians or Europeans die young -- often from tropical disease. In these

African conditions, parental care is a less certain way of making sure a child will survive. A better

strategy is simply to have more children. This tilts their life history toward the r-end of the r-K scale. A

more r-strategy means not only more offspring and less parental care. It also means less culture is passed

from parent to child, and this tends to reduce the intellectual demands needed to function in the culture.

And the process continues from one generation to the next.

In contrast, the humans migrating to Eurasia faced entirely new problems -- gathering and storing

food, providing shelter, making clothes, and raising children during the long winters. These tasks were

more mentally demanding. They called for larger brains and slower growth rates. They permitted lower

levels of sex hormones, resulting in less sexual potency and aggression and more family stability and

longevity. Leaving the tropics for the northern continents meant leaving the r-strategy for the K-strategy -

- and all that went with it.

The Evidence

How can we know if the Out of Africa theory is true? To answer that question, we have to look at

the evidence from genetics, paleontology, and archaeology.

The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues

looks at thousands of genetic DNA comparisons of the races. Geneticists count the number of gene

mutations in each group to measure which groups are most closely related and when the groups split from

one another. These DNA studies support the Out of Africa theory that the split between Africans and all

other groups was the first to take place.

Fossils of prehistoric humans tell us that early steps in our evolution took place in Africa. Homo

sapiens lived in Africa between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, but they only reached the Middle East

about 100,000 years ago. Earlier hominids such as the Neanderthals were very different from modern

humans. They had faces that jut further forward and they had larger front teeth than any living Europeans,

Africans, or East Asians. Neanderthals had denser bones, thicker skulls, and more pronounced brow

ridges than any modern humans. By comparison, all living humans are alike, despite our race differences.

Archaeology tells us the same story. The crude, Early Stone Age culture (termed Lower

Paleolithic) of Homo erectus, existed more than one million years before Homo sapiens appeared. The

Early Stone Age tool kit had hand-axes, choppers, and cleavers, all very similar in shape. However, the

Middle Stone Age tool kit of the Neanderthals (termed Middle Paleolithic) included more advanced stone

tools and the use of bone.

When modern humans first appeared on the scene 100,000 years ago, things started to change in

major ways. The Late Stone Age tool kit (termed Upper Paleolithic) was highly specialized. It consisted

of thinner blades struck off of stone cores to make knives, spear barbs, scrapers and cutters. Standardized

bone and antler tools appeared in the tool kit for the first time, including needles for sewing fur clothes.

The Late Stone Age tool kit contained tools made of several parts tied or glued together. Spear points

were set in shafts and ax heads in handles. Rope was used to make nets to trap foxes, rabbits, and other

small animals. Advanced weapons like barbed harpoons, darts, spear-throwers, and bows and arrows gave

Late Stone Age people the ability to kill animals from a safe distance.

Survival in Northeast Asia about 40,000 years ago also required warm clothing. Archeologists

have found needles, cave paintings of parkas, and grave ornaments marking the outlines of shirts and

trousers. We know that warm furs were worn. Fox and wolf skeletons missing their paws tell us that these

animals were skinned to make fur clothes. Houses were dug into the ground to provide insulation. These

large dwellings were marked by post holes and had walls made from mammoth bones. Fireplaces and

stone lamps were used to light the long Arctic winter night.

Geography and Race

Africa is warmer than the northern continents, but it is a less stable habitat. Droughts, storms, and

diseases from viruses, bacteria, and parasites cause high death rates, even today. Without modern medical

care, insuring survival in Africa means having many young (r-strategy). In the more stable environments

of Europe and Asia, survival is insured from having fewer young, but caring for them very well (Kstrategy).

The environment of Eurasia produced physical differences between the races. Northern Europe』s

cloudiness meant less sunshine. This decreased the intake of vitamin D, so lighter skin and hair were

needed to let more sunlight get in. As a result, Europeans born with lighter skin and hair were healthier.

They had more chance of having children who would survive and reproduce.

East Asia was even colder than North Europe, but with less cloud cover and more sunlight. There

a thicker layer of fat helped to insulate against the cold. This gives many Orientals a so-called 「yellow」

complexion because it reduces the visibility of red blood vessels close to the skin. Meanwhile in Africa

melanin gives the skin a black color to protect it from the scorching rays of the sun.

Climate differences also influenced mental abilities. In Africa, food and warmth were available

all year round. To survive the cold winters, the populations migrating northwards had to become more

inventive. They had to find new sources of food and methods for storing it. They needed to make clothing

and shelters to protect against the elements. Without them the people would have died. Both parents had

to provide more care to help their young survive in the harsher climates.

Whites and Orientals in Eurasia had to find food and keep warm in the colder climates. In the

tropics, plant foods were plentiful all year round. In Europe and Asia they were seasonal and could not be

found during many winter and spring months.

To survive the long winters, the ancestors of today"s Whites and Orientals made complex tools

and weapons to fish and hunt animals. They made spearheads that could kill big game from a greater

distance and knives for cutting and skinning. Fires, clothes and shelters were made for warmth. Bone

needles were used to sew animal skins together and shelters were made from large bones and skins.

Making special tools, fires, clothing and shelters called for higher intelligence. Moving 「Out of

Africa」 meant moving into a K-type life-history strategy. That meant higher IQ, larger brains, slower

growth, and lower hormone levels. It also meant lower levels of sexuality, aggression, and impulsive

behavior. More family stability, advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity were

needed.

Conclusion

Fossil records, archaeology, and genetic DNA studies of the living races support Charles

Darwin』s insight that we evolved in Africa. Humans then spread to the Middle East, Europe, Asia,

Australia, and then to the Americas. As humans left Africa, their bodies, brains and behavior changed. To

deal with the colder winters and scarcer food supply of Europe and Northeast Asia, the Oriental and

White races moved away from an r-strategy toward the K-strategy. This meant more parenting and social

organization, which required a larger brain size and a higher IQ.

Additional Readings

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P., Piazza, A. (1994). The History and Geography of Human Genes.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Stringer, C. McKie, R. (1996). African Exodus. London: Cape.

.　　首先，黃色人種有南亞人、東亞人（華人）、北亞人種，極北愛斯基摩人、印第安人。人類最早的種族是布須曼人，深黃色，可以說布須曼族世界所有民族的母族。也就是說很可能人類最早膚色應該是深黃色的，白色黑色人種是某種自然環境下後來演化的結果，而黃色人種膚色也有變化但是基本保留黃色特徵。

　　黃種人互相差別巨大，東亞人種北亞人種（羌漢血統圈）智商全球最高105，南亞智商和非洲尼格羅人一樣都是84，愛斯基摩人91，印第安人87。（見鏈接：中國人的智商全世界最高？(圖)·科技頻道·科技創造財富）

　　各種人種各有特徵，運動天賦和智商是個蹺蹺板，華人肢體運動能力差爆發力差而高智商，黑人智商低爆發力好運動天賦好，白人兩者都在中間。

　　乒乓球比拼快華人讓人狂虐，但是我們搞出旋球搞出高智商複雜控球，就打遍天下了，說白了我們打乒乓球打的是智商而不是運動天賦，是揚長避短。

　　華人生理特徵是長期高寒形成的，高寒帶來高智商和四肢笨拙爆發力差。（關於寒冷的鏈接：1：知乎專欄: 2：知乎專欄）

　　但是人類近代八千年歷史是高寒人種的擴張過程，因為畜牧農耕商業科技都是複雜文化，高智商者有優勢。故而未來是華人的，我們是最符合未來的人種。

　　還有，高寒人種骨骼粗壯，我們舉重也很好，但是足球田徑是我們的弱勢。

　　而華人的高智商優勢無人能比，我們是世界上唯一一個連文盲都可以背誦99乘法表可心算口算的民族（我研究認為這個問題不光是我們智商好，也和漢語簡潔有關，可看鏈接：知乎專欄）。

　　中國的文化科技劣勢是因為東亞的隔離導致的，而西方印度埃及中東歐洲面積廣大人口比較多互相學習故而最先進，中國人雖然聰明但是半隔離於東亞缺乏學習交流機會，就算這樣小麥青銅器鐵器仍然由中亞經新疆傳入，這是中國文明誕生的最重要因素，有了小麥青銅器才能大規模定居有文明誕生，而南方高溫高熱沒有鐵器僅僅依靠火燒和青銅器無法清理地下根系無法大規模農耕。有了鐵器有了鐵制農具華人才越過淮河向南擴張佔據整個東亞的。

　　所以說，華人就算聰明是諸葛亮，但是埃及印度中東歐洲是四個臭皮匠超過諸葛亮，文化科技長期積累的結果是我們科技水平遠遠落後。只是東亞農耕條件優越雨熱同期土地肥沃我們農耕社會富裕過而已，並不先進。農耕條件優越中國很早就有了大規模城市而西方少有，這也是很多人認為我們自古先進近代才落後的原因。但事實上富裕不等於先進，我們文化科技自古都是落後的。

　　西方北非印度中東歐洲是一體的大文明體，算是人類主幹文明，人口就算是中國的四倍，他們的體系文字以5500年計算，中國的體系文字3600年計算。從文字到邏輯學，他們歷經了3200年，他們是我們四倍人口，所以我們的進化速度是他們的四分之一，因此，我們從文字到邏輯學，應該是12800年。而甲骨文，已經有了3600年，因此到邏輯學，應該是9000年-------這些計算方法，基於我的進化公式」種群數量×演化時間=進化高度「

　　是的，我的意思是，沒有西方傳入，中國本土想自己發育出來類似《幾何原本》那樣完備的幾何學到古羅馬那種完備的邏輯學，還需要八千年！

　　當年西班牙人帶去了歐洲的病毒，毀滅掉了南美印第安人，但是西班牙人是否受到南美病毒的干擾呢？

　　因為種群巨大，歐洲人和與歐洲人共生的細菌病毒同樣進化充分數量多更兇狠。

　　就是說，南美的病毒早就在歐洲進化過，歐洲人早就適應了，而和歐洲人共生的病毒要先進兇狠很多，南美印第安人因此被毀滅！而不多的幾個歐洲人攜帶的病毒殺死了幾百萬美洲居民，而這些歐洲人並未被美洲人的細菌病毒所傷害。

　　亞非歐是個巨大大陸，讓這個大陸有最複雜龐大的生態可利用，有各種複雜物種可供改良馴養提供了各種農作物和家畜，有了最先進的文明科技，也有最豐富厲害的病菌，於是這塊大陸的領先者歐洲人攜帶了槍支病菌和各種先進武器入侵到美洲並帶來巨大災難，而不是反過來美洲人入侵歐洲。

　　這巨大差異是因為亞非歐巨大大陸和美洲大陸的面積不同導致後續一些先進落後差異所導致的，亞非歐大陸面積最大有最先進的物種最龐大的生態規模最豐富的物種，接著有了農作物和可供馴養的家畜，也有了最早的農業和最先進的知識積累以至於最先進的科技最先進的武器等，而美洲因為面積相對較小導致資源也少社會發展也落後，甚至於人群共生的細菌也落後簡單，最後在和歐洲人的爭鬥中幾乎被滅絕。

　　中國因為絲綢之路，中國和歐亞主幹文明雖然隔離但並未絕對隔離，不多的餓交流讓細菌病毒提前傳入中國讓華人提前得以適應，這才在近代歐洲人直接到來時候沒有造成被細菌突然襲擊而滅種的後果。

　　但生理特徵來說，華人雖然肢體笨拙但有高智商優勢，最適合從事科技和複雜工商業事務，文化科技的落後只要謙虛學習一百年二百年可以補齊，但特殊環境造就的高智商是幾萬年形成的學不走，故而我認為未來的世界是華人的。

　　而當務之急是承認落後學習先進科技文化。

多看看歷史，你就不會這麼自卑了。封建時期的中國還是非常牛B的，不是一般般的牛B。

文官體制發揮到極致，想想古代交通那麼不發達就能長期統一一個大國，還有一堆非常穩定的附屬國，對比歐洲即使出一個大帝國也很快分裂，絕對是天朝無異。

但就是太牛B了，沒有競爭對手，雖偶有胡人搗亂，但都是野蠻民族；所以不那麼重視經濟，不重視商人，不重視生產工具；而歐洲工業革命時，你可以參考《物理簡史》，各國間有強烈的競爭意識，王公貴族以支持科學創新為榮，還互相攀比競爭。其他領域，音樂家、畫家、作家各國串門，互相競爭，甚至因為常有小規模戰爭，武器也快速發展。如果你熟悉歷史，這儼然一副歐版：「春秋戰國諸子百家」時代。

歐洲航海時代也是如此，英國、法國、西班牙、葡萄牙等都四處搶著發現新大陸，說是地理大發現，其實就是搶版圖。鄭和的航海成就不比他們低，可是千里迢迢跑到印度南邊給印度黑人蓋房子送禮物，這是怎樣一個天朝上國。美國是白人殺光土著買賣黑人奴隸起家的、西班牙人衝到瑪雅把幾乎所有瑪雅文字燒毀、南非、巴西等的歷史都是白人罪惡史。

另外一些領域中國或者東亞很強，但國人有西化傾向，覺得老外的好，比如政治體系，文學，語言，油畫，戲劇等等，甚至連西服都覺得老外好。

政治體系大家老講民主和共產都是西方人提出來的，可是仔細想，兩種都是極其虛幻的理想主義者。民主是假設權力無限且人民可以理智分配，共產是假設資源無限且人民可以理智分配。這和中國的實用主義哲學完全違背，我相信未來最強大的國家一定不是教科書上的社會體制，而是自身適合而且有隨時隨環境變革能力的體制，就像世界500強公司每個都有各自的企業框架和發展歷程。有些企業體制曾經強大過，缺變革能力可能瞬間就倒塌了，例如諾基亞；所以民主這個所謂的普世價值觀和國家強大毛關係都沒有。

文學：上大學時讀老外的名著，都覺得滿空洞的，不及中國圖書好看。

油畫：隨便一個中國人都知道幾個西方畫家，卻忘記自己的水墨山水畫，也不去發展了，居家都開始掛油畫，有幾個掛中國傳統的捲軸書法山水畫？

老外還喜歡在諾貝爾獎有政治成分的地方噁心中國人。

中國最先合成胰島素、在量子光學領域也很超前（投資小，現在用處不大，哈哈）、楊振寧其實是國際上掰指頭數的著的物理大牛、等等，隨著中國趕上西方，相信還會有更多科技發明的。

。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。

其實人類文明除了科技，還有很多方面，即使沒有西方，東亞自成體系的文明也可以達到很高的高度。當然有競爭情況下，大家競爭發展都快，中國發展快的時候都是北方游牧民族有威脅時。

個人對中國的文化還是非常喜歡，自豪的

我認為所謂「東亞人智商高」的說法，其本質不過是「應試教育的訓練方式恰好可以提高該群體在智商測試中的應答能力」。

證據一，離應試教育越遠的族群，智商就會顯得越低——然而如果是種族基因決定智商的話，就不會產生這種分布；證據二，人類史上最聰明、對人類知識儲備貢獻最大的人，幾乎都是白人。

我的看法是，

智商和個人基因有關，也和一個人從小到大的經歷有關。

但智商和族群/種族基因無關，而與該族群普遍經歷的相似經驗有強關聯——這就可以解釋為什麼東亞人群智商普遍偏高（應試教育，生存競爭更激烈等）；而非洲（蒙昧的、半原始自然狀態）和穆斯林群體（宗教壓制與迫害）等群體智商明顯偏低甚至很低。

訓練（比如應試教育）可以提高熟悉度，讓被測者儘可能接近其「可能性」，但無法讓其突破其固有能力的上限。

每個時代的人都認為自己所處的最近200年才有發明創造，而之前的成千上萬年的創造他們都會認為是天上掉下來的，不是智慧產物。

你現在對網路，火箭，ipad, 燈泡這些發明的崇拜，幾百年之後就會被認為是小兒科，沒人覺得那些多牛。就像現在很多人談起造紙印刷，火藥，指南針，鏡子，紙幣，考試製度斗不覺得有什麼了不起一樣。

而人種進化是個相當漫長的過程，200年事不足以判斷優劣的。五百年才20代人，起作用的基本只是地緣政治之類。

可以做一些想像：你出去打獵，航海什麼的，只要陰天久迷失方向，無數人因此失蹤，茫茫天際居然有個東西能永遠指向一個固定方向。這絕對是個巨不可思議的大發明，發明這個東西的人種，你會說他沒有創新？

想像你如廁還要用樹枝，字都要寫到竹子上，上個學跟砍柴一樣還拿不了多少，活字印刷和紙的發明不是天才？發明這個東西的人種是不是牛？

風水輪流轉，今天你牛，明天我牛，主要是地緣政治之類原因，判斷人種問題一定要縱觀歷史，看人類如何演化。一種看法認為人類從非洲遷徙而來，白人和東亞蒙古利亞人種都是最後演化出來的。東亞人還要更遠一些，而且重農耕，頭大體小，性徵弱，犯罪率低，重視教育，壽命長，情緒不激烈，演化出了單眼皮(猩猩，馬來人都是雙眼皮)，體毛弱，不善跑跳善技巧，文字系統複雜，飲食文化發達。

以後怎麼樣，誰都不好說，每個個體都無力改變，只能自己努力吧。

1）東亞人智商更高？這個說法有證據么？可信么？如果沒有可信的證據，那麼整個問題的前提就是不成立的。維基里有講到過這個問題：Race and intelligence，裡頭有一種說法說在忽視教育經濟居住地文化等因素影響的前提下進行IQ測試並不客觀，會有很大誤導。不信你看還有研究結果說亞洲人，尤其是中國人的IQ低於歐洲人的：Asian IQ lower than White IQ。該信誰的？

2）就算東亞人智商更高，那也只能說明東亞人對一些事物的思維反應可能更快，但是未必就能反映到實際運用領域。就像我們常說考試高分不代表高能一樣。

3）創造力的體現是什麼？通常是指科技進步的表現。歷史上各種族地區的科技進步，可以說是輪著來的：古埃及人會造金字塔的時候，東亞這邊也還沒什麼特別的建樹呢，歐洲古希臘也沒喘上氣呢。

所以不要去費勁考慮什麼種族更優越這種論調，除非你承認當年希特勒把猶太人趕盡殺絕，或者日本右翼說我們是東亞病夫都有有道理的。

就算智商更高也是平均值的比較，而引領人類進步的是少數人

幾十道平均二十秒一道的選擇/填空題能在多大程度上檢測一個人的思維能力，我很懷疑。

我初中有個同學，有點智力障礙。後來全國化學聯賽輕輕鬆鬆得了很厲害的獎。你說他智商是高還是低呢？

以前在數學系被各種抱大腿，大家都以為我從來不上課還啥都會智商老高了。但我其實反應慢到常常被我那位大專學歷、學酒店管理的發小將軍。我只是很擅長分析建模解方程而已。

我更傾向於認為智商測試是一個「准入性」測試，低於一定閾值則屬於智力障礙，高於此閾值則不再具有導向性意義。

人種差異確實有，但智力差異我不太信。首先美籍亞裔和本土亞裔的普遍智力水平真的相差還蠻大的。其次東南亞裔和東亞裔的普遍智力水平的差距還是很大的。僅從人種的角度很難解釋這兩方面的差異啊。

東亞人是否智商更高？東亞人創造力是否不如白種人？這兩個本身就是問題所以你的問題不成立以日本人命名的科學概念有岡崎片段，湯川勢，南部場華人有楊李方程楊mills理論

東亞人的諾獎和專利都被你無視了

典型的十九世紀種族優越論的調調，到了20世紀仍然試圖炒冷飯。反正白人打贏了，從近代開始碾壓世界，想怎麼說都行。

反對智商論，這實質上是個偽命題。

答主高中生，高中常考的歷史題目往往是為毛歐洲人用四大發明發展了那麼多？而後引用一段馬還是恩的話，大意是中國人創新能力有餘而發展能力不足。

這是100多年前的歐洲人的感慨，現在我們實力起來了，用他們的發明發展的時候，他們指責我們沒有創新能力，只有發展能力。

有此可見，歐洲人人文素質也不怎麼樣。

他們也是完全按照自己的當前看法發表言論。

這個問題沒有什麼意義。就算你拿出研究結果證明人種之間的差異，我也不信……

因為我是學自然科學的，自然科學的很多研究都水分大，可重複性差（國內外都是這樣的）。別的我更不信了。

從1840年鴉片戰爭，到1949年建國，戰亂109年。從建國到開放，內亂30年。這麼長的時間，足以讓一個民族的各個方面的素質，智商，身高之類的指標大大下降。100多年啊！這該是多長的一段時間。

創造需要文化思想的積累，不能一蹴而就

那個地方水土最養人那裡智商越高

東亞自古是以中國為中心，中國強則東亞強，中國弱則東亞必衰，至少整體會被歐洲甩開。東亞落後就始於宋朝滅亡，蒙古對漢人的屠殺是令人髮指的，北方漢人幾乎絕跡，南方也好不到哪去，可以說蒙古的屠殺和近100年的壓迫統治基本決定東亞以後能和歐洲齊平的可能性都沒有了。雖然後來明朝有所恢復，但只是相對元朝而言，但還是遠不如宋，明末滿清大屠殺可以毫不誇張的說直接和間接導致漢人死了1億8千萬(明末2億清初不足2千萬），清朝是個半封建半奴隸王朝，絕大多數漢人都是給全國各地的旗人當奴隸來養活他們的。清朝使華夏文明大倒退，最終結果是導致近代中國遠遠落後歐美，日本也不如，而且滿清的壓迫統治帶來的奴才愚昧無知漢奸思想根深蒂固，至今還有。

因為東亞這邊的歷史原因，雖然智商高但是由於我國在民國以前都是深受科舉毒害，只重死板教條的文科，而當時其他東亞國家都是以中國為尊，周邊國家都是藩國從制度上照抄中國也導致了全民創造力下降。新中國以來，國內其實在學術領域一直是動蕩著的，文化氛圍也不好，抄襲成性，這個對創造力的影響我也不提了，高考制度的弊端也就是體現在抹殺創造力上。周邊國家也不提。創造力不是由人種和智商決定，而是由教育上決定的，從小的教育環境決定了我們的創造力的確不如人家。