Science 9 May 2014:
Vol. 344 no. 6184 pp. 603-608
DOI: 10.1126/science.1246850
Large-Scale Psychological Differences Within China Explained by Rice Versus Wheat Agriculture
T. Talhelm et al.
Cross-cultural psychologists have mostly contrasted East Asia with the West. However, this study shows that there are major psychological differences within China. We propose that a history of farming rice makes cultures more interdependent, whereas farming wheat makes cultures more independent, and these agricultural legacies continue to affect people in the modern world. We tested 1162 Han Chinese participants in six sites and found that rice-growing southern China is more interdependent and holistic-thinking than the wheat-growing north. To control for confounds like climate, we tested people from neighboring counties along the rice-wheat border and found differences that were just as large. We also find that modernization and pathogen prevalence theories do not fit the data.
Link
18 comments:
Interesting study. I've seen prior work looking at historical hoe farming v. plough farming v. pastoralist primary food production methods and local cultural dispositions, but never a study distinguishing between wheat farming and rice farming although the same logic makes this a plausible connection.
very interesting
Interesting study, though I'm always a little cautious about cultural determinism.
"I'm always a little cautious about cultural determinism."
Culture can be used as artificial evolution - terra-forming for humans.
But, what if true?
Culture can be used as artificial evolution - terra-forming for humans.
Could you explain, please?
Haven't dna studies shown that North and South China are inhabited by different population streams?
It could well be true - the methodology seems to be sound. But as I say, we should be cautious.
Arraguado - I think you are right (though the relevant literature is not to hand), but I thought it pre-dated agriculture.
"Haven't dna studies shown that North and South China are inhabited by different population streams?"
Sort of. Y-DNA is pretty much the same through much of China, with O making up some 80%. Especially O2a3c1-M134 and O3a1c-002611, indicating a reasonably recent expansion. Probably Neolithic.
http://dienekes.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/neolithic-super-grandfathers-of-chinese.html
On the other hand the mt-DNA haplogroups mostly look to be of longer regional standing. This pattern fits other indications that the ancient South Chinese/Southeast Asian population was not 'Mongoloid'. That element moved south some time during the Neolithic.
As a resultof the above you will find some studies that claim North and South China are the same genetically with others claiming they are different. A further complication is that studies vary in where they draw the boundary between 'North China' and 'South China'. Many, in fact, use the Yangtze River as the boundary but this is obviously a most stupid boundary considering the probability of any series of Neolithic expansions.
"I thought it pre-dated agriculture".
Almost certainly not.
@CPS
"Could you explain, please?"
If in a particular environment there's an individual behavior which is optimal at the *group* level but which isn't being (or can't be be) naturally selected for at the individual level then culture can be used / imposed to artificially select for that trait.
I would say that the difference between rice and wheat oriented agriculture stems from the fact that wet rice agriculture requires a significant initial outlay of effort, to construct the paddies.
To construct paddies requires a great deal of labor, which necessitates cooperation between nearby communities. Where as wheat ag only requires sowing seed to produce a crop.
Wet rice agriculture requires a re structuring of the area where rice is plated, from terracing the paddies to constructing the irrigation canals to bring water to the paddies.
- Grey
So you are saying that a group sat down and decided that a less individualistic mindset was the way to go for rice farming, and imposed it upon the others? Or am I missing the point? Still don't see where terraforming comes into it - do you mean the changes to the landscape that resulted from rice farming?
just corrlation...
"Haven't dna studies shown that North and South China are inhabited by different population streams?"
The researchers controlled for that:
"We tested people from neighboring counties along the rice-wheat border and found differences that were just as large."
Unless only genetically northern Chinese grow wheat and only genetically southern Chinese grow rice, I don't see how their results are explainable using genetics. Studies have already shown that Chinese genetics do not follow a strict division into two population groups, but falls in a cline from north-to-south. The stark differences between *neighboring* rice growing and wheat growing countries are inexplicable via population groups.
@CPS
"So you are saying that a group sat down and decided that a less individualistic mindset was the way to go for rice farming, and imposed it upon the others?"
More or less. I'm saying some local version of Aquinas, Augustine, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, Mohamed etc figured an optimal behavior out and managed to convince enough of the others to change the culture.
The changed culture then acted as artificial evolution.
I think that's the main (only?) way group level evolution can work.
#
The phrase "terraforming for humans" is just an analogy i.e. culture as artificial evolution in the same way as terraforming would be artificial evolution.
Terraforming is an interesting venue. It seems collective action is more easy to take place in collectivistic organized groups, up to today. Specially on important terraforming tasks. An overlord deiding for all.
Being a Mexican (of the otherness of the north)it is easy for me to see in big Pyramids, and even ancient cities built, being built, terraformed, by genetically collectivistic Asian Native Americans. Even Dal Lake in Kashmir has a lot of similarities with Xochimilco's lacuster life.
What a friend and I have noticed is great diferences in tropical enviroment's life, say monsoon rice producing regions, or central american, and septentrional and austral people. The non tropical being usually individualistic and in many cases even more socially well organized (it's own ways of collective action).
Grey -
That was more or less the point I was making to begin with - that we should be wary of explanations that downplay the free will of certain individuals.
@CPS
Fair enough.
Post a Comment