Are East Asians inherently more neat and tidy than South Asians?

[Indus Pakistan]

South Asian in general. Mahoman Singh was born in Pakistani Punjab but was leader of India. Mushurraf was born in Delhi and was leader of Pakistan. I think you have to admit that the connections between India and Pakistan are pretty significant.

Yes, I was born in Pakistan and now live in UK but that still leave the 94% who are 'native' ....
Obama is half Kenyan African and 10% of American's are of African origin but that does not make USA African ...

Quite to the contrary US is regarded as 'Westerrn' and of European heritage.

 

[Jlaw]

There is growing evidence within the scientific community that differences in behaviour between races may be genetic. The research keeps getting hushed up because nobody wants to deal with the controversy.

The same thing with IQ research.

 

[Aepsilons]

Hi @Nihonjin1051

I got back home from Office and thought why not read and research a "little bit" on the concept of "Innate Goodness" ... boy oh boy ... there is SO MUCH out there. I download the 9th edition of the book you mentioned: Theories of personality / Richard M. Ryckman, its about 700 odd pages so I will read it tonight before going to bed for few hours...I am currently reading The Distinction Between Innate and Acquired Characteristics (found on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and I am quoting a para from it below:

"During the 2008 US presidential election journalists frequently referred to a candidate's characteristic beliefs or attitudes as ‘part of their political DNA’. This is an example of how in contemporary English ‘in the DNA’ or ‘in the genes’ has come to replace older phrases like ‘in the blood’. But if genetics can be used to elucidate the innate/acquired distinction it is certainly not because some traits, the innate ones, are caused by the genes whilst others, the acquired ones, are caused by the environment. While the difference between two individuals can be caused by a genetic or an environmental difference between them, the development of any trait in an individual depends on both genes and environment. Every aspect of development, including learning, consists in the regulated expression of the genome. Conversely, innumerable aspects of the environment are required at each stage in the life of the organism to keep development on its normal course, or, on other words, to ensure that the right genes are expressed in the right cells at the right time. Thus, all traits develop through the interaction of genome and environment. Philip Kitcher has referred to this as the ‘interactionist consensus’ (Kitcher 2001)".

Now a para from the book you mentioned (so much to digest will take some time to digest the complete picture) :

"The actualizing tendency has both a biological and a psychological aspect. The biological aspect includes drives aimed at the satisfaction of basic survival needs—the need for water, food, and air. The psycho-
logical aspect involves the development of potentials that make us more worthwhile human beings. In Rogers’s judgment, we are all basically good. The actualizing tendency is, thus, selective and direc-
tional; it is a constructive tendency. Organisms do not, according to Rogers, develop their capacity for nausea or self-destruction except under the most perverse circumstances (Rogers, 1977, p. 242). Instead, they develop their innate goodness, but only if society acts toward them in a helpful, encouraging way. Although Rogers was
clearly optimistic about human nature, he was nevertheless keenly aware that human beings are sometimes immature and antisocial and that they sometimes act out of fear, ignorance, and defensive-ness. Such behavior, however, is not in accordance with their basic natures, according to Rogers, but is the result of faulty socialization
practices. Thus, society can facilitate or hinder movement toward self-actualization"

I am still reading but I believe that the environment which surrounds us plays a vital role in shaping or re-shaping our behaviors; our brain constantly learn to adapt to new situations which are derived from our daily interactions with our surroundings. One of the main reasons we are NOT predestined for a particular behavior by our genes is that our environment can turn those genes on or off; when we learn how to optimize our environment, we learn how to make behavioral change easier and more successful.

I will continue my reading ... I new the underlying premise but never actually dealt with theoretical texts on this subject, I must say it is very interesting...

Regards:
Adecypher

Greetings my friend @Adecypher ,

It really is interesting isn't it how we see that there is dual factor in the molding of human behavior. These two factors are 1) environment and 2) innate biology. Tho research is revealing that there is actually more emphasis of environment than biology, biology has a role, definitely, like for example how genetic predisposition to develop Alzheimer's Type Dementia can lead to personality changes in individuals in later life that cannot be so easily modified. Another example would be patients with high family association and instance of Schizophrenia will have a 10% chance and likelihood of developing schizophrenia or schizo-affective related disorders and substantially more likely than a person who may not have a family history of said cognitive disorder. So the defense of biological nuances and predisposition in developing personality disorders is definitely valid.

Its just interesting for us to observe that despite these associations between specific genetic markers and behavioral patterning , that association is only but part of the picture in the overall patterning of behavior. Research currently validates the issue of association behavior, patterning behavior, observational behavior, as well as more epigenetic factors such as lower socioeconomic status, parental eating styles, parental drinking, family culture, school-based bullying, stress levels, stress and coping mechanisms --- all also play a role in behavioral development.

I'm happy to see that you find this subject and research topic of interest, as it really does shape society and the individual.

Great to read your points, great to read your written thoughts. Look forward to touching base with you again, buddy!



I Remain Sincerely,
@Nihonjin1051

 

[PlanetWarrior]

South Asians are generally a filthy bunch of pigs. They should all go for cleanliness classes taught by either Black, White or Mongoloid teachers.

 

[Aepsilons]

South Asians are generally a filthy bunch of pigs. They should all go for cleanliness classes taught by either Black, White or Mongoloid teachers.

Hi,

Its not right for any of us -- either we be of East Asian, or South Asian, or White Caucasian origin -- to be generalizing an entire regional group such as the people of the South Asian Region. I think its important for us to understand and to put into perspective that much of countries in South Asia are largely undeveloped and that is partly responsible for the health and social issues that are currently of interest for their governments. I want to use India as a case example.

In India we have a massive country of a population of over 1.22 billion, that's more than the entire population of the African continent, that is double the population of the entire European Community, that is equivalent to 4 units of the United States' population. India is urbanizing and human developmental index indicates that the country is improving gradually as compared to what it was say in the 1980s, 1990s. Nevertheless, compared to India's less populous neighbors such as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nepal, or say the United States, Japan, South Korea, German, The United Kingdom, -- India remains lower in the HDI ranking file.

The reason for this is that the majority of the communities in India are rural, and the lower socio-economic status of these communities. Lower socio economic communities will have less exposure and less access to affordable health care, to primary education, to secondary education, to tertiary (and quaternary) levels of education.

However, for the areas in India that are of high economic status, we notice that there is practically no divergence in behavior to their comrades in other countries that also belong to the same socioecnomic class. You see, its all about environment and socioeconomic status. SES influences not only violence, health, education, but socialization processes.

Countries in South Asia , as per my Indian Case Study example, are still developing, are of lower socioeconomic status. But that's not the end all deal here, that's just the current situation on the ground. The fact is --- these countries are developing and are progressing, and over time as these communities raise their standard of living, raise their access to health care, to education, they will raise their socioeconomic status and thus improve their socialization abilities and increase the likelihood of social mobility.

So, that's the pragmatic, realistic, relativistic analysis.



Best,
@Nihonjin1051