Abstract: There, due to the harsh meritocratic system, almost all politicians are STEM graduates. Read the touching story of provincial official Zhao BingBing, describing the meritocracy process at her level.

Yes, we need to talk about it. We have to. About the dictatorship of the sociologists.[1] The issue of the disparity / discrepancy between sociologists (the so called α scientists) and the STEM graduates (the β scientists, the “hard” scientists) that I have raised a few times already, appears to be very sensitive. It is raising emotions, it is a taboo subject. Apparently with that subject, I’m brutalizing ideals and toppling people’s holy cows.

In our western society, during the last five decades, not just the media, but also politics, the education system, HR in enterprises, … are all taken over by sociologists. STEM scientists are banned now in these fields. There, right that, is the root cause of the decline of our western society.

Not so in China. There, due to the harsh meritocratic system, almost all politicians are STEM graduates. Read the touching story of provincial official Zhao BingBing, describing the meritocracy process at her level.[2] 

I only came to the insight (of the invaluable contributions of STEM graduates to our society) when I had already lived in China for some time, the country of choice for engineers. In the company I managed in Wuxi, my HRM was an ex mathematics specialist. Also, at many other companies in China, the HRM is a STEM graduate. The job requirements, which I drafted together with my HRM, always included “高智商” gāo zhìshāng (high IQ). In the West it would be an absolute taboo to mention such a requirement. With my team in Wuxi, I have accomplished technical and organisational targets that were deemed impossible at my headquarters and among our competitors in Switzerland.

Chinese politicians are smart, extremely smart:

They are on average at least twenty-five IQ points smarter than Western politicians. To get to that bold conclusion, we first look at:

1. Global IQ scores. (as per Heiner Rindermann, Richard Lynn, Gerhard Meisenberg, Philippe Rushton & Arthur Jensen, Jason Richwine and the global SAT and PISA scores.) 

Chinese people, on average, in the developed coastal area as well as the less developed Western provinces, are on average 10 IQ points smarter than the average of the developed Western countries:

Fig. 1 Global I.Q. Scores

The Forbidden Topic: Race and IQ. The race and IQ controversy. Read here.

2. Hard science versus soft science. Hard science being science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM); soft ‘science’ being psychology, sociology, political science, law, communication, marketing, administration, education, history and anthropology.

In Western countries, almost all politicians are soft science graduates, while in China nearly all politicians are STEM graduates, most of them engineers.

Report by Dr Randal Olson, Lead Data Scientist at Life Epigenetics.[1] Based on data of the US National Center for Education Statistics.[2]

Forget for a moment the horizontal male-female axis, then, from this scatter chart, we can derive an average IQ difference of 15 points between STEM graduates and soft science graduates (sociologists).  

Fig. 2 IQ-scores college majors

Interactive scatter chart by Etienne Pinard.[3]https://plot.ly/~etpinard/330/us-college-majors-average-iq-of-students-by-gender-ratio/ – / 

[3] Etienne Pinard, “Interactive Scatter Chart”. Plotly, 07.10.2015.

[2] “Bachelor’s, master’s, and doctor’s degrees conferred by post-secondary institutions, by sex of student and discipline division: 2011-12” NCES (US National Center for Education Statistics), 20.10.2019 https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_318.30.asp

[1] Etienne Pinard, “Interactive Scatter Chart”. Plotly, 07.10.2015.

[1] Randy Olson, “Average IQ of Students by College Major and Gender Ratio”. Randal Olson, 25.06.2014




Prof. Wouter Duyck, UG faculty of psychology and educational sciences; presentation for Marnixring, 12.12.2019

[1] Sociology directions are: sociology, psychology, communication sciences, pedagogy, political sciences, law, criminology, speech therapy, physical education and movement sciences, philosophy, language and literature, Eastern languages and cultures, African languages and cultures, morals, art sciences, archaeology, anthropology, medicine, veterinary medicine, rehabilitation sciences and physiotherapy, pharmaceutical sciences, applied linguistics.

When we add up 1 and 2 we get 10 + 15 = 25 points as shown in the graph here below:

Fig. 3 IQ in politics

3. Election versus meritocracy. We don’t even bring the IQ advantages of Europe’s failing ‘democracy’ vs. China’s efficient meritocracy into account. Godfree Roberts, in his article Should we compete with China Can we? [1] estimates that the Chinese meritocracy adds up the IQ of politicians to at least 140 points.

[2] Daniel Bell and Zhao Bingbing, “The China Model, A Conversation between a Communist and a Confucian” Princeton Press, 01.05.2013.


4. The Flynn effect (the global convention on how to adjust IQ scales over longer time periods) will certainly add up China’s IQ scores. In Europe, due to mass immigration, there’s currently a negative Flynn effect, while in China, due to the fast-developing education system, there’s a positive Flynn effect.

The West is becoming less intelligent. This is the shocking yet fascinating message of ‘At Our Wits’ End’.[2]

Obviously, these are averages of averages. For sure there are smart politicians in Western countries too. But in China, due to the harsh, relentless meritocratic selection process, they’re all smart – very smart. 

Imagine a top-level negotiation of a large delegation of western versus Chinese politicians, sitting on opposite sides of the negotiation table. A 25 IQ points difference is easily noticeable! 

Western sociologist politicians are idiots, compared to Chinese STEM politicians.

Here the message I always send when the α boys start living a bit above their means again: 

“Dear self-infatuated postmodern intellectual. You see yourself at the top of the knowledge pecking order. It is absolutely your right to think so, and I will not contest it. But maybe you should also consider the following facts. Both our groups, yours and mine, have given rise to a quite substantial literature. I can read your part. I cannot always understand it, but do not automatically blame that on the reader. You however cannot even read our part: you do not know the language (mathematics). You never bothered to learn it. You say that you skipped it because it is not really important, but I suspect another motive: you early on discovered that you just could not cope with it. That’s OK, as long as you accept that a substantial part of reality will forever remain Terra Incognita for you.

As a consequence, from my viewpoint you are partly illiterate, even analphabetic. There is no way to discuss my view of things with you, not anymore than with South African bushmen. Oh, I will do my best of course but it will remain very clumsy and you will blame that on me. No, I do not request that you treat me with some form of respect. Frankly, I couldn’t care less. But you could be somewhat more critical towards your own belief that your opinions are universally valid.”

The response is usually… outrage. Who cares? [3]   

Or, with the words of a psychiatrist:

So you, the sociologists, think you know the reality and you’re making it explicit. But actually, you only make explicit the representations that you have accumulated in your brain over the years, heard and fantasized.

Those representations under your skull cap are not as rational as you might imagine: they come with a very large contribution from the most primitive impulses from the body, as moderated by the brain stem into a constantly evolving homeostasis. More than you can even imagine, you are descendants of the most primitive organisms that have inhabited this planet for millions of years, and therefore you are also the bearers of the same primitive mechanisms of those distant ancestors.

The ideas in your head, which you think of as “thoughts”, change continuously again and again without you realizing it. Strung together, they form a narrative that absorbs, processes and stores the neuronal reflection of your own life history as it was absorbed by your brain.

You’re certain that what you say is correct, but it is only what your brain fabricates. If you think you are telling something about concrete reality, then you are only reflecting what is going on in your brain at that moment and that is only a very small part of what really happens in that skull and nothing guarantees that it is a correct rendering of what is going on outside, in reality. To know if you have a hold of reality, you have to observe, measure, experiment and, above all, be extremely critical.

But I note that you know the Ultimate Truth and even want others to accept it as the only truth. In my humble opinion, such behaviour is only proof that they do not understand it.*

*Jaak Peeters, “The Psycho Version” 04.08.2020

[1] Godfree Roberts, “Should We Compete with China? Can We?” The UNZ Review, 14.10.2019  

[2] Edward Dutton, Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Yr, “At Our Wits’ End; Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What it Means for the Future” Societas collection at Imprint Academic, Exeter UK, 01.11.2018. http://books.imprint.co.uk/book/?gcoi=71157100317440        

[3] Gerard De Beuckelaer in “A Message to the Sociologists” 03.08.2020 (four months before he died)