You have 2 comments

1. 

   J.R. 2026-08-15 20:32

   USA remains number one in the following:
   -higher education rankings (internationally recognized)
   -military prowess (ultimately the #1 factor in acquiring superpower status)
   -nobel prizes given (China has a paltry amount, less than India)
   -open debate, critique and dissent (acting as a society error-correction function and fueling adaptation and change)

   Alot of your claims about chinese meritocracy and stem aptitude are not internationally benchmarked. It’s all smoke and mirrors. If you really believe this narrative, then start citing internationally standardized measures that prove your claims of chinese STEM aptitude and high IQ.

   回复
   • 

     Frans Vandenbosch 2026-08-15 22:52

     J.R.,

     Thank you for taking the time to read my article and to share your thoughts. You raise four distinct points, and I appreciate the opportunity to address them directly.

     First, let me address your overarching accusation that my claims are ‘not internationally benchmarked’ and amount to ‘smoke and mirrors’. This is factually incorrect. My article explicitly cites Randy Olson’s analysis, which uses United States Educational Testing Service data (SAT scores) to estimate IQ by major, and Jonathan Wai’s research programme at Duke University, which analysed 1.6 million United States GRE test-takers. These are internationally recognised, United States-based standardised measures. I am applying United States psychometric data to analyse the cognitive aptitude of STEM graduates. If you accept the SAT and GRE as legitimate metrics for American students, the logical inference about the cognitive profile of STEM-trained officials stands on firm empirical ground.

     Now, to your four specific points.

     1. Higher Education Rankings

     You are correct that the United States has traditionally held the top spots in many global rankings. However, you significantly understate China’s current position. In the latest subject-specific rankings for STEM fields, Chinese universities are now filling the top ten positions in disciplines such as engineering, computer science, and materials science. For example, in the U.S. News Global Subject Rankings, Tsinghua University ranks first in several engineering categories, and multiple Chinese institutions now occupy the top five globally in artificial intelligence and renewable energy research. Two decades ago, this was unthinkable. This meteoric rise is a direct consequence of the STEM-driven, long-term strategic investment in education and research and development that my article describes. The existence of American Ivy League institutions does not disprove China’s success; rather, it proves that China’s governance model is effectively closing a historic gap at an unprecedented speed.

     2. Military Prowess

     I agree with you that the United States remains the world’s leading military power in terms of budgetary expenditure and advanced weaponry. However, military might is not the ultimate determinant of superpower status if it cannot be translated into strategic victory. The United States military was terribly defeated in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, despite overwhelming technological superiority. These conflicts demonstrate that raw military power, without coherent long-term strategy and understanding of local conditions, can become a liability rather than an asset. By contrast, China’s defence modernisation is systematic, patient and tied to clear economic and strategic objectives. The STEM-heavy leadership, including officials with backgrounds in rocket science and aeronautical engineering, has been instrumental in executing this defence strategy without overextending into unwinnable quagmires. Acknowledging American military spending does not negate the effectiveness of China’s developmental model; it highlights what a focused technocracy can achieve in a few decades of disciplined investment.

     3. Nobel Prizes

     This is a popular talking point, but it requires a more critical historical and political perspective. The Nobel Prizes, and especially the Peace Prize, are increasingly viewed as instruments of Western cultural and political imperialism. The selection process is opaque, dominated by Norwegian and Swedish committees that reflect a narrow European worldview, and the awards have frequently been given to figures and organisations that serve Western foreign policy interests. Recent recipients of the Peace Prize have included politicians and activists whose selection appears motivated more by geopolitical convenience than by genuine contributions to global peace. One might reasonably ask why a prize that overlooks the lifting of 800 million people out of extreme poverty is considered a credible measure of civilisational merit. If we look instead at contemporary, forward-looking metrics, such as the Nature Index for high-quality STEM publications, global patent filings (China leads in patents for artificial intelligence, batteries and renewables), and total research and development spending (China now spends over 2.6 per cent of GDP, rivaling the United States in absolute dollars), China is currently outpacing almost every nation. The STEM aptitude is clearly measurable in today’s engineering outputs, not in twentieth-century award ceremonies controlled by Western committees.

     4. Open Debate, Critique, and Dissent as ‘Error-Correction’

     This is the most philosophical point, and it hinges on how a society corrects errors. You argue that Western dissent fuels adaptation. However, I would counter that this model has increasingly led to political gridlock, policy paralysis, and extreme polarisation, which are themselves severe societal errors. For example, United States infrastructure spending takes decades due to litigation and partisan wrangling, while China builds high-speed rail networks and modern airports in a few years. Regarding public safety, the United States homicide rate, approximately 6.0 per 100,000, is twelve times higher than China’s rate of approximately 0.5 per 100,000. Which system is correcting the error of gun violence more effectively?

     China’s ‘error-correction’ operates through internal party discipline, policy piloting, such as Special Economic Zones, and long-term feedback loops embedded in its five-year plans. The Harvard Ash Center survey, which I cited, shows over 90 per cent public trust in the central government, a metric that suggests the Chinese people perceive their government as effectively correcting errors and delivering tangible well-being. Ultimately, if ‘debate’ does not translate into measurable improvements in life expectancy, public safety, and poverty reduction, it remains a procedural virtue rather than a substantive one.

     In conclusion, my article does not argue that the United States lacks strengths. It argues that China’s deliberate selection of high-cognitive-ability STEM graduates for leadership roles correlates empirically with extraordinary material and developmental outcomes. The metrics I cited, such as life expectancy, poverty reduction, infrastructure development, and public safety, are globally standardised by the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, and the World Bank. They are not ‘smoke and mirrors’; they are hard data.

     I invite you to engage with those specific empirical outcomes rather than dismissing the entire argument based on a perceived lack of citations, which, as shown above, are plentiful and internationally sourced.

     Best regards,

     Frans Vandenbosch

     回复