Infernal Ramblings
A Malaysian Perspective on Politics, Society and Economics

Does Culture Matter?

Written by johnleemk on 5:39:55 am Dec 25, 2007.
Categories: ,

It is all too easy to forget how important culture is. "Culture" conjures up in our heads things like Spanish telenovelas, French cuisine, and Shakespeare. But culture is more than that. Culture consists of the often implied and unspoken rules people adhere to. These rules determine the amount of drama that goes into telenovelas, the dishes prepared by a French restaurant, and the content of a Shakespearean tragedy — but they also determine the schools we go to, the things we buy, and the professions we take up.

Is there any other explanation for why the typical American Jewish kid goes to university, while the typical American black kid goes to jail? Is there really another explanation for why the typical Singaporean kid aspires to attend Harvard or Cambridge, while the typical Indonesian kid aspires to just have a real job?

Of course there are other explanations. One such explanation might be genetics — the Jews and East Asians have higher IQs, while the rest of the world languishes behind. But although this disparity does show up in IQ tests, studies show that everyone's IQ is increasing with the passage of time, and that the gap between different ethnic groups has been narrowing. There certainly should not be a genetic predisposition for criminal or antisocial behaviour — at the very least, no study has convincingly shown this to be the case.

Economists generally do not believe in culture — they are more likely to attribute these differences to discrimination of some sort, which would affect the incentives for different people in different ways, causing them to behave differently. But although this explanation has a good deal of merit — a middle-class American black student is liable to do much better than his inner-city, ghetto counterpart — it cannot completely explain these differences. Do we seriously believe that from a thousand American blacks, and a thousand Asian-Americans, each group will contribute the same number of Ivy League scholars, and the same number of jailbirds?

When comparing the different outcomes of implementing the market economy in the West and in the East, I came to the conclusion that culture plays a role in economics. If we view culture as a set of rules which people adhere to, we find that culture actually constitutes an incentive — people are likely to behave in accordance with the rules they have been brought up to follow. If we accept that government regulation has an impact on the economy, we have to accept that implicit self-regulation, in accordance with the norms one has been raised to adhere to, also has an impact on the economy. We may not model them exactly the same way, but the fact remains that they have a role to play in determining economic and societal outcomes.

You might have noticed that I have been subtly emphasising education through my examples — that is because education is perhaps the clearest way to illustrate this phenomenon. I attend what is perhaps the least well-known Ivy League university, Dartmouth College. Many of my white friends comment on how few people know what Dartmouth is — and yet, almost every Asian-American I mention my university to instantly recognises it as an Ivy.

There is no gene which would dictate this — heck, I come from the continent of Asia where most people don't know what the Ivy League is, and a lot of people have no innate yearning to memorise the eight most prestigious or historic universities in any country. Neither is there a strong incentive structure predisposing Asians to this — because of affirmative action, most if not all Ivies subtly discriminate against Asian students in admissions, and all other things being equal, there is no huge payoff from an Ivy education that would not likewise accumulate to a white who attended an Ivy League.

The inexorable conclusion is that there is something about Asian-American culture which fuels this obsession with education. Culture is what gives these people an incentive to learn the names of the Ivy League schools.

So does culture matter? It obviously matters a lot. Culture is of great import to everyone, and not just because of Britney Spears or William Shakespeare. Culture doesn't just change societies — it changes lives.

So why is it all too easy to forget this fact? Because dealing with culture is messy and difficult. Every nation is composed of different cultures, separated by different lines, some ethnic and some class-based, some well-defined and some blurry. Governments can offer simplistic (if not too effective) solutions to purely economic or legal issues, like poverty and the crime rate. But governments cannot offer simplistic solutions which touch on culture without offending some important minority, or causing untold negative ramifications. The few governments that accomplish this, such as Singapore's, do so only because of factors specific to their country (e.g. Singapore's small size), and frankly, creep the rest of the world out.

After all, how are you going to change the environment of the homes of your people? How are you going to change the longstanding traditions and norms of whole families and neighbourhoods? How do you make people in the ghetto slums value education the same way people in Chinatown or Little India do? Heck, how do you make middle-to-upper class whites value education the same way Asian-Americans do?

How would you impart the enterprising spirit of the Asian-Americans to their brethren in Asia, some of whom are scared to death of taking risks? How would you impart the emphasis on understanding and actual learning, part of Western culture for centuries, to an Asian population focused on memorisation and teaching to the test?

I don't pretend to have the complicated answers to these questions. I would not be surprised at all if there aren't any answers — at least not if "you" is the government.

One thing we can be certain of about culture, nevertheless, is that it changes, and it changes because of individuals. There may or may not be ways for government to directly influence culture — but at the same time, culture is what we make of it. Culture matters — and what is your contribution to it? Merry Christmas to all the Christians reading, and a belated Eid ul-Adha to all my Muslim readers.


If you'd like to keep informed about updates to the site, consider subscribing to our web feed:

Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.

Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.


Comments

Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)

Related comments from forum thread "Does Culture Matter?":
ckng02474
Member
Posts: 14
IP Logged

Posted at 8:42:25 pm Mar 11, 2008
I believe you have erred in assuming that there is a known genetic link between race and IQ. I would contend that there is no known link unless you are a fond believer of eugenics. And lest you raise the ugly and flawed specter of "the bell curve", I would say one is better off working on the premise of real opportunities, and correlate that with socio-economic class and perhaps the values of a given social unit (be it family, or a community at a given mini-geographical area).

Also, it is a misnomer to think that the market economy can be implemented whole sale to a formerly agrarian or less than developed society. We have seen that failed on more than one occassion in post-colonial sub-sahara Africa, for a great many reasons. And in present day China, as the heavily populated country transition itself over to a modern day market economy, the social-political outcomes are less than ideal. One would hazard to think that the ruling elite in China can do this transition without a major hiccup or two. This does not mean the market economic model is flawed to the core, only that when one prescribe an economic model onto a given society, one must take into account the past history of that society, and how that society works. As you alluded to in a meandered manner, culture does matter, as does history and aspiration of a given society.
Last five replies (4 comments not shown):
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind
Head Administrator
Posts: 949
IP Logged
Posted at 10:31:42 pm Mar 13, 2008
First, I don't see why you appear so bothered about libertarianism or Hayek. Do you believe that if men were created with unequal potential, we would be justified in discriminating against some of them? I don't see how anyone reasonable can arrive at that conclusion - not when we have no reliable way to predict the future of a man. (I use non-gender neutral terms but of course I am referring to both sexes.)

Now, yes, I know about Stephen Jay Gould's book; I have not read it, but I suspect I agree with most of his conclusions. Yes, race is an abused notion, one which I think is long past its due date. I believe in seeing people as human beings, not as members of one race or another.

I suspect where we differ is in minor details (at least, minor when it comes to practical public policy; as a purely intellectual issue, our differences may not be so small). You seem to prefer to insist that because we can never accurately define what race is, any correlation that might even potentially suggest a causal link between "race" and intelligence or IQ is not worthy to be even discussed.

I am not saying that we should discriminate, or that there is evidence going beyond correlation; all I am saying is that race and intelligence are correlated to some degree, and that we should thus be able to leave it as a somewhat open question as to whether there is additionally a causal link. (That is really all I said. If you read something else into what I've been saying, you're sorely mistaken.) There is more than sufficient evidence to prove some sort of correlation between what we commonly call race and intelligence. It may be coincidence that Ashkenazi Jews are extremely overrepresented among Nobel Prize winners, or it may not, but the correlation exists.

As I said, the question is, what evidence is there that race contributes to intelligence? My view is that the evidence here is sorely lacking. IQ tests taken by Americans in the early 20th century reflected the common stereotype that Italians and Irish were stupid and lower class; IQ tests seem to reflect other factors more than they reflect intelligence, although there probably is some degree of correlation between IQ and intelligence. That people of all races succeed at practically all endeavours is evidence enough that regardless of whether there even is a causal link between heritage and intelligence, people are individually unique enough to defy whatever stereotypes you throw at them.

But having said that, I refuse to close the door on the suggestion that we may be wrong in our belief here - just as I am open to discussing evolution, gravity, relativity, climate change, political philosophy, and any number of other things. I don't believe certain subjects are non-negotiably off-limits, or that certain things are proven beyond all doubt. In science we don't know something for sure; we just know it fits all the available data. When new data comes in, it is foolhardy to say this data contradicts our moral or ethical principles and should thus be ignored.

You keep saying that "causal links" based on misinterpreted correlational findings have been abused. To me, this smacks of blaming men like Einstein for discovering the principles that made the atom bomb possible. Yes, great inhumane disasters have resulted because of what we have discovered, but blaming the facts will not help your cause in any way. You can only fight data with data, and as I said, there is a dearth of evidence that race contributes to intelligence or achievement - why inject ideology into science? The Nazis and other racists have consistently used bad science, so why refute their science with your notion of equality and egalitarianism when that has no bearing on what the scientific fact is, and when science itself proves them wrong?

To return to the original article I wrote and tie all our loose ends up, I specifically left open the question of whether race contributes to intelligence because it lies somewhere between something blatantly false on the basis of the facts (e.g. that the world was created in 6,000 years), and something that has only one reliable explanation (e.g. the creation of the universe - the Big Bang theory fits all available data the best). For the moment, we have correlational evidence, but poor (if any) data suggesting a causal link between ethnicity and achievement. We are neither here nor there.

My contention all along has been that ultimately, this question, as intellectually interesting as it might prove to be, is largely irrelevant in practice because any effect ethnicity might conceivably have on intelligence seems dwarfed by factors we can and should change, and because no matter what we think an individual's potential might be, we have no right to deny that individual a chance to be all he or she can be. I don't know what other libertarians might think about this issue - perhaps they're all racist pigs - but that's my view.
mrtfkhang
Member
Posts: 10
IP Logged
Posted at 7:34:36 am Apr 4, 2008
I do not think there is anything wrong to say that there is a genetic component to intelligence. The genes determine how the wiring of the brain occurs so the contribution is definitely there. The only question is the relative contribution of the genetic and environmental components. People who believe that ethnicity is an important determinant of intelligence are simply people who put less weight on the environmental component. Of course showing thie empirically is an almost hopeless exercise because of confounding between the two components.
ckng02474
Member
Posts: 14
IP Logged
Posted at 10:31:20 am Apr 12, 2008
Quoted from: mrtfkhang
I do not think there is anything wrong to say that there is a genetic component to intelligence. The genes determine how the wiring of the brain occurs so the contribution is definitely there. The only question is the relative contribution of the genetic and environmental components. People who believe that ethnicity is an important determinant of intelligence are simply people who put less weight on the environmental component. Of course showing thie empirically is an almost hopeless exercise because of confounding between the two components.

I would think that genetics in itself does not lend to "race" and it would be best to not confuse the two subject matter. Race as a concept is a highly diffuse subject that cannot be properly defined socially or even, scientifically, genetics is a whole different subject matter.

My contention is, barring a strong (much less a full) understanding how genetics influence intelligence and its "correlation to race", should we start to formulate public policies along those flimsy lines of reasoning and paucity of scientific knowledge? We do not fully know how genes determine the wiring of neurons, though we might understand on a limited level what some of those factors are. Indeed, the wiring is only one component to a functional brain, and there are other compelling if not well understood degrees of neuronal plasticity during early brain development, and throughout one's life time. What bothered me more was the correlation of "racial" groups to "intelligence", a concept that can be vague and diffuse.

The eugenics movement was clearly based on that such bad premises of race and intelligence. Its impact on past public policies, and the history of science have clearly shown how badly that had turned out. And till today we still have those "bell curvers" extolling these much debunked ideas, finding popular currency in both the West and now modernizing Asia. The funny thing is, Asians in the 1920s are often seen as "lower" than their "european" counterparts - all based on the wonderful eugenics theory of race and rank. And now, we have some in the intellectual niches in Asia or elsewhere, making a case for eugenics. Indeed, when the notion of race is undefined, and had been so since the eugenics ideology was successfully debunked, why still cling on to "race and intelligence" as a premise?

Given that, why does one still cling on to such debasing ideas, help sustain this bankrupt ideology and make excuses for it? Notwithstanding the claim that people putting less weight on certain contributing factors on intelligence, I wonder if one will say the same if one truly knew the history of eugenics and how society in the past (and even now) had disabused scientific knowledge in advancing public policies.

In my mind, it better to say, we do not know and hold onto higher principles of humanity (for instance, equality and social justice) in public policy making when it comes to "race" and intelligence. And cast a highly critical eye on mere reports of "simple correlational studies linking race to what ever immutable human traits". And I would call on all who come across this respponse to seriously spend time digesting Stephen Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of Man".
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind
Head Administrator
Posts: 949
IP Logged
Posted at 4:31:43 pm Apr 12, 2008
Given that, why does one still cling on to such debasing ideas, help sustain this bankrupt ideology and make excuses for it? Notwithstanding the claim that people putting less weight on certain contributing factors on intelligence, I wonder if one will say the same if one truly knew the history of eugenics and how society in the past (and even now) had disabused scientific knowledge in advancing public policies.

I won't respond to the rest of your post because I completely agree with it, but this particular paragraph seems specifically addressed to me (if it's not, my apologies). I don't defend eugenics or racism as well-founded ideologies; I merely refuse to completely discredit some evidence which they frequently abuse. Correlation does not imply causation, but it might do so. Eugenicists, et al frequently argue that the correlation between IQ and race, or Nobel Prize winners and race (ok, the previous one not so frequently, since it's the Ashkenazi Jews who dominate) means that there is a causal link. My view is that they have not made this case, and until they do so, there is no policy merit in considering their case. Intellectually, I view it as an interesting and potentially open question - one I'd like to debate, but one I see as having no bearing on public policy. It's a very nuanced view, I know, but I think it best reflects the available data out there.

I think that even if science proves some peoples are innately inferior to others, this can never be a justification for discrimination in public policy against individuals on the basis of this criterion. No matter what findings you put forth, it's already pretty clear that any differences in terms of intelligence or competence are so small that it's been impossible to prove they exist since the dawn of civilisation; all you'd be able to prove is that the distribution of intelligence for, say, Asians is shifted a bit to the right compared to the distribution for whites. (Of course, this assumes we'll have some sort of scientific definition of "Asians" and "whites".) That alone can never justify discrimination. There will always be individuals at the edges of the distribution; there will always be people who defy the stereotypes you throw at them. It is far safer for society to treat all its members equally, because we do not care about the accomplishments of one specific subset of humanity; we only care about individuals who fall and rise on their own merits.
ckng02474
Member
Posts: 14
IP Logged
Posted at 10:22:25 am Apr 20, 2008
Quoted from: johnleemk
Given that, why does one still cling on to such debasing ideas, help sustain this bankrupt ideology and make excuses for it? Notwithstanding the claim that people putting less weight on certain contributing factors on intelligence, I wonder if one will say the same if one truly knew the history of eugenics and how society in the past (and even now) had disabused scientific knowledge in advancing public policies.

I won't respond to the rest of your post because I completely agree with it, but this particular paragraph seems specifically addressed to me (if it's not, my apologies). I don't defend eugenics or racism as well-founded ideologies; I merely refuse to completely discredit some evidence which they frequently abuse. Correlation does not imply causation, but it might do so. Eugenicists, et al frequently argue that the correlation between IQ and race, or Nobel Prize winners and race (ok, the previous one not so frequently, since it's the Ashkenazi Jews who dominate) means that there is a causal link. My view is that they have not made this case, and until they do so, there is no policy merit in considering their case. Intellectually, I view it as an interesting and potentially open question - one I'd like to debate, but one I see as having no bearing on public policy. It's a very nuanced view, I know, but I think it best reflects the available data out there.


I take your points on trying to raise issues, tangential as it may be to the insidiousness of the subject matter. It is afterall an exercise in free speech. My issue with your raising of such issues is quite simple - given that the subject matter is insidious, and the findings, cloaked in pseudo science, why give it legitimacy in your otherwise good forum? Why propagate falsities based on the flimsiest of empiricism just because the topic "might prove to be true", something that is an extremely long shot?

Intellectually, I am sure there are folks who find the English "dogs and nonwhite man" laws put in place by the racists past extremely intriguing and there are certainly correlations to suggest that canine behaviour are not too distant from those "nonwhites" - certainly of interest and potentially open question that is good for debate? Equally of interest would be the scientific justifications in african slavery devised by the 16th century Jesuits and worse, the then great scientists of the 18th century. Science then was used to justify a lot of interesting world views and this article of yours, benign as it may be, continues on in that long tradition.

If we debate without aforeconscience or discuss without understanding what it is that we are debating, the activity is not about "very nuanced" nor about the "available data" out there, but of our moral leanings or lack of it?

A journalist, or a blogger, does have such such moral and ethical responsibilities, and should look more into such issues when s/he is trying to "raise an issue" or "debate". If there is a need for debate, why don't you offer the "chinese are more intelligent than malays or indians" starting point? Afterall, you do have data, problematic as it may be, to show that the chinese as more intelligent by IQ testing, and malays or indians suffer badly in IQ testings? Hmmm ... better yet, why not subscribe to national socialism ideology or eugenics for they sanctify such pseudo scientific findings and gave it legitimacy in peer reviewed scientitif journals of the 30s and 40s? These papers are better than simply correlational studies, they are peer-reviewed! Notwithstanding the bad science, or public policies based on such issues, present day or otherwise, surely, the topic is debatable?

The issue is, does one show good judgement in the face of bad science on morally reprehensive issues? I have to say, I see very little evidence of such in this particular topic and the reasonings offered. It does create a problem of moral credibility by those of us who might know differently. I have tried to avoid getting personal, but despite my previous exhortations and your continued defense of questionable positions (not withstanding freedom of expression and the responsibilities therein), I do question if you truly know the depths of the topic involved here? If not, should you not find out more before you continue to defend the undefendable (unless you sincerely believe in such), and prolong the debate?






Latest:
Personality Cults Come With the Territory
Popular:
Personality Cults Come With the Territory

Most Recently Read

  1. Referring to Oneself in the First Person
  2. The Disneyfication of Pop
  3. Malaysia, A Constitutional Monarchy
  4. Absolute vs Comparative Advantage
  5. Racial Stereotyping As Seen in Crash
  6. The Injustice of a Minimum Wage
  7. Analysing the Beatles' Success
  8. What is Secular, What is Islamic?
  9. The Flawed Argument Against Welfare
  10. Don't Fear, There's Freedom of Speech
Latest active forum topics
Quoth the webserver...
The fundamental defect of fathers is that they want their children to be a credit to them.
— Bertrand Russell
Poll
Sorry, only registered users may vote. Please register or login.

There are currently no polls running.