Brown privilege in the American executive suite

By Razib Khan 49 Comments

Why East Asians but not South Asians are underrepresented in leadership positions in the United States:

Whereas extensive research has examined the “glass ceiling” faced by women, little research has examined the “bamboo ceiling,” whereby Asians appear disproportionately underrepresented in leadership positions in the United States. To investigate the mechanisms and scope of this problem, we compared the two largest Asian subgroups: East Asians and South Asians. Across nine studies (n = 11,030), East Asians were less likely than South Asians and whites to attain leadership positions, whereas South Asians outperformed whites. The leadership attainment gap between East Asians and South Asians was consistently explained by cultural differences in assertiveness, but not by prejudice or motivation. To leverage diverse leadership talent, organizations should understand the differences among different cultural groups and diversify the prototype of leadership.

I’ll put some stuff from the discussions of each of the analyses:

– “Our analysis of the population of S&P CEOs revealed notable leadership attainment gaps among EAs, SAs, and whites. Whereas EAs had a lower CEO-to-population ratio than whites, SAs actually had a higher CEO-to-population ratio than whites. These results indicate that at the highest level of US corporate leadership, EAs are less likely than SAs and whites to attain leadership positions, whereas SAs actually outperform whites.”

– “By analyzing a large-scale field survey distributed to a set of S&P 500-level companies, study 2 provided evidence that the leadership attainment gap between EAs and SAs exists not only at the CEO level (study 1) but also in broader senior leadership across large US companies. Importantly, this effect could not be explained by control variables such as birth country, education level, or the economic prosperity of EA vs. SA countries.”

– “By analyzing another large-scale field survey, study 3a provided evidence that EAs were less likely than SAs to attain senior leadership positions partly because EAs were lower in assertiveness, but not because they were lower in motivation. Again, these effects could not be explained by control variables such as English fluency, birth country, education level, or the economic prosperity of EA vs. SA countries.”

– “By analyzing another large-scale field survey, study 3b provided further evidence that EAs were lower than SAs in both current and prospective leadership attainment, partly as a function of EAs’ lower assertiveness.”

– “Complementing the field studies involving large US companies (studies 2, 3a, and 3b), study 4 analyzed a large MBA dataset that mitigated self-selection and self-report biases. Replicating the prior studies, EAs were less likely to be nominated as leaders than SAs; this effect was again mediated by assertiveness. Consistent with study 1’s finding about CEO representation, SAs were more likely to be nominated as leaders than whites. Importantly, these effects could not be explained by control variables such as personality, SES, and birth country.”

– “By analyzing the objective leadership attainment of a large dataset of MBA students, study 5 provided further evidence that EAs were less likely to attain leadership positions than SAs; this effect was again mediated by assertiveness. Consistent with the prior studies, SAs were more likely to attain leadership positions than whites. In addition, EAs and SAs did not differ significantly in leadership motivation or aptitude, suggesting that these two factors were unlikely to be the main reasons for the leadership attainment gap between EAs and SAs.”

– “Dovetailing with study 6a, study 6b found that non-Asian Americans exhibited greater prejudice toward SAs than EAs. These results suggest that prejudice is unlikely to be the main reason for the observed leadership attainment gap between EAs and SAs. As a robustness check, we replicated these results in another preregistered study that employed a group comparative design (for details, see SI Appendix).”

– “Study 7 provided experimental evidence that non-Asian Americans rated EAs lower on leadership potential than SAs. Consistent with our prior studies, this effect was significantly mediated by perceived assertiveness, but not by prejudice or perceived motivation. Together, these results suggest that, despite facing less prejudice than SAs and being equally motivated, EAs are less likely to attain leadership positions.”

The authors cite Amartya Sen’s The Argumentative India, but anyone who has spent time around subcontinentals and East Asians is aware of the difference. To be frank, we brown people can kind be annoying dicks, lacking in grace and civility. This is evident in comments on this weblog. But these antisocial tendencies happen to be good for selecting CEOs of major American companies.

2+

49 Replies to “Brown privilege in the American executive suite”

  1. Interesting that “deep” cultural roots are being evoked here about South Asian argumentativeness and East Asian Confucian deference to authority, especially since the study’s about the US born too and not just immigrants who were socialized elsewhere (many East Asians, like the Japanese and earlier waves of Chinese have a long history in being the Asians who defined the “Asian American” movement of the past generations, and had more time to grapple with assimilation; South Asians are newer to the “Asian American” identity, though certainly there were older waves like the Punjabis in the Central Valley).

    I find this idea of cultural norm persistence interesting especially since your last post, also on this blog, previously, has “the power of assimilation” in the title!

    The idea that (insert name of group — eg. Chinese, Indians, Jews etc.) have 1000s of years of cultural norms that won’t disappear is at odds with the other popular idea that immigrants’ cultural norms don’t last more than one or two generations in the US.

    I remember there’s social science literature on persistence of social norms among ethnic identity over generations but I can’t feel a strong consensus on how strong it is. Ideas like Albion’s Seed argue that “settler” founders of cultures set the tone, and immigrants merely assimilate to them (e.g. Bobby Jindal assimilates to Red State America, other desis assimilate to AOC’s left-wing NYC) but I recall other arguments that European immigrants’ descendants (e.g. German, Irish, Jewish etc.) retain cultural distinctiveness for a really long time. For example, the example of cultural norms used regarding Germans who settled the midwest having more of a “family farm” culture vs. Anglo-descent Yankees who valued land to be bought and sold.

    I wonder if East and South Asians retain cultural distinctivenss for a long time in the industrialized “WEIRD” West (I’d thinking one way to look at this would be places where we indeed do have lots of groups of these people for multiple generations existing in cohesive communities but also far removed from the immigrant experience, perhaps Desi Britons and Hawaiian Japanese-Americans or “old-stock” pre-1960s Asian American enclaves in California, if they exist etc.).

    1. For example, the example of cultural norms used regarding Germans who settled the midwest having more of a “family farm” culture vs. Anglo-descent Yankees who valued land to be bought and sold.

      wow. you remember that? that’s cited in boyd & richersen.

      i don’t know how much persistence is gonna happen. intermarriage rates are quite high if you look at 1.5 & 2nd generation. the ‘joint-family’ is pretty rare.

      1. I was just thinking about persistence, because even if the study does include the native-born and immigrant alike, it could still be heavily driven by the fact that a relatively large share of E. and S. Asians alike are only one generation removed from an immigrant upbringing.

        Thus, perhaps, if it is driven by cultural norms (e.g. about assertativeness, talkativeness), rather than discrimination or opportunity, and these traits aren’t innate and will converge to the US norm over time, especially with socialization, intermarriage etc. then perhaps the trend in differential representation is transient, a product of now when the 2nd+ and 3+ generation is still numerically small to draw a pool of recruits from.

        I’m also curious about cultural persistence, because the study actually contrasts South Asian assertiveness culture with the opposite in Japanese culture. But Japanese Americans (included among the E Asians surveyed) are actually one of the most disproportionately non-immigrant or non-children of immigrant groups in the Asian American demographic — most are 3+ generation and will have families who have assimilated into US culture, been through the civil rights movement etc. Also, Japanese Americans were one of the more assertative Asian American groups at the time of the 60s and 70s when the Asian American movement was getting going, not necessarily because of their old country culture but their experience stateside (e.g. WWII internment etc.).

        So, if Japanese Americans, one of the more multigenerational Asian Americans in the US are contrasted with the well-represented South Asians (who are on average newer in family history stateside), that’s saying something interesting.

  2. When you’re a man (and given that we’re talking about leadership positions, we’re talking about men), you have to own the stage. If not, people just think you’re a dumbass.

    For whatever reason, brown men are better at this than our East Asian brethren.

  3. An old quote from “Okakura Kakuzō. The Ideals of the East with Special Reference to the Art of Japan, 1903.”

    “Asia is one. The Himalayas divide, only to accentuate, two mighty civilisations, the Chinese with its communism of Confucius, and the Indian with its individualism of the Vedas. But not even the snowy barriers can interrupt for one moment that broad expanse of love for the Ultimate and Universal, which is the common thought-inheritance of every Asiatic race, enabling them to produce all the great religions of the world, and distinguishing them from those maritime peoples of the Mediterranean and the Baltic, who love to dwell on the Particular, and to search out the means, not the end, of life.”

    A bit romanticized at the time of early 20th century pan-Asianism (around the time of Tagore) but it’s interesting that the sentiment that acknowledging that South Asians are more individualistic and East Asians more collectivistic, while both are still proudly unified as Asians was a sentiment expressed in that quote.

  4. I don’t get what Argumentative Indian got to do with it though. Its pretty superficial book, like a liberal version of what Sadhguru would write.

    I think perhaps one thing missing in East Asians and which S-Asians excel in is talking a big game, which helps in this corporate settings.

  5. Interestingly Indian CEOs of at least the top companies – Google, Microsoft, Adobe and IBM, are all from South India. The stereotype is that South Indians are less assertive than North Indians. Though arguably the South Indians are more assertive than the East Asians.

  6. Recently I read elsewhere that Pichai was made google head because the company was past its summer, and they needed a craven and spineless person to absorb humiliations and blame for decay while leaving the genuinely creative people free to pursue actual development stuff.

    This post kind of says the opposite. So may be it is the non-assertiveness, may be it is the assertiveness, but in any case everyone can agree that the blame should necessarily fall on South Asians.

    BTW, thank you for the optimistic proposal that the lack of grace and civility among us low IQ uncouth commenters correlates with CEO potential, if only we could harness it smarter.

    1. ” So may be it is the non-assertiveness, may be it is the assertiveness,”

      Pichai comes across as the whatever would be the german word for the opposite of assertiveness.

  7. South Asians are outstanding political operatives and understand dynamic hierarchies (know who’s *ss to kiss). The courtiers of the managerial class.

  8. I have not yet read the cited article. However I have read some of this literature. The way this literature generally calculates East Asian under representation from C level executives is highly suspect. Why?:
    —Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans should be individually grouped. Other east Asians are significantly under represented among C level executives relative to them
    —Age needs to be correctly accounted for (people in their twenties are less likely to be C level executives). [It is possible that this particular study has accounted for age.]
    —Chinese, Japanese and South Koreans are massively more likely to be recent college graduates, mid range managers, directors and vice presidents relative to their share of the general American population
    —Comparing ratios of (C level executives)/(Vice Presidents), (C level executives)/(Directors), (C level executives)/(mid range managers), (C level executives)/(recent college graduates) are deeply misleading since the denominators are extraordinarily large compared the equivalents for European Americans
    —there is reason to believe that Japanese, Chinese and South Korean Americans massively academically outperform European Americans in K-12, undergraduate and graduate schools, which results in them being massively over represented at the recent college graduate, mid range manager, director and vice president levels. Much of this is likely not due to higher levels of physical health and intelligence, but due to greater academic studying
    ——-relative to academic performance; Chinese, Japanese and South Koreans arguably have lower levels of physical health, intelligence, capacity, competence, merit, excellence and potential. Therefore we would “EXPECT” that the ratios of (C level executives)/(Vice Presidents), (C level executives)/(Directors), (C level executives)/(mid range managers), (C level executives)/(recent college graduates) be lower ceteris paribus
    —European American ratios of (C level executives)/(Vice Presidents), (C level executives)/(Directors), (C level executives)/(mid range managers), (C level executives)/(recent college graduates) are likely heavily skewed by including high performing European American ethnic groups, specifically “Asian” European Americans (East Europeans, Jews, Lebanese, Israelis, Iranians etc.). “Asian” European Americans should be removed from the sample to better estimate European American ratios.
    —Indians are a massive outlier that is heavily skewing the South Asian ratios. I would be curious to see the South Asian minus India ratios.

    Might leave more comments later.

    Just read all the comments. All of them are “EXCELLENT”. Clicked a thumbs up on all of them. Salut everyone!

  9. anan, there are variables to account for the confounds. they disaggregate SE from E asians, so that’s an irrelevant objection.

    i think the point about structure within european/white groups is important tho.

    1. Since I have not read the academic article, is it asserting that:

      (Chinese American C level executives)/(all C level executives) < (Chinese American population of 5.1 million)/(329 million)

      (South Korean American C level executives)/(all C level executives) < (South Korean American population of 1.8 million)/(329 million)

      (Japanese American C level executives)/(all C level executives) < (Japanese American population of 1.5 million)/(329 million)

      ?

      Good that they separate South East Asian and Filipinos from East Asians.

      1. Looks like someone has to pay $10 to read the paper. Not sure it is worth reading yet.

        Questions:
        —Are only “CEOs” measured? What about:
        ——Chairmans
        ——Presidents
        ——Chief Operating Officers
        ——Chief Technology Officers
        ——Chief Financial Officers
        ——Chief Information Officer (growing in importance)
        ——Chief Compliance Officer/Chief Legal Officer
        ——Chief Data Officer (growing in importance)
        ——Chief Marketing Officer
        ——Executive Vice Presidents
        ——Senior Vice Presidents
        ——Vice Presidents
        ——Directors

        How many companies are in the data set? What are their sizes? Any industry level granular detail?

        My observation is that what matters is de facto rather than de jure titiles. It is my further anecdotal observation that South Koreans, Japanese and Chinese do extremely well in tech companies at the director, vice president, senior vice president, executive vice president, and C level.

        South Korean, Japanese and Chinese headquartered multi-nationals also hire Americans for senior management positions. This is likely reducing the number of South Korean/Japanese/Chinese Americans in senior American positions.

        What are the trends over time? Is this a panel data set?

        What are the actual ratios of?:

        (Chinese American C level executives)/(all C level executives)
        Note (Chinese American population of 5.1 million)/(329 million) = 1.6%

        (South Korean American C level executives)/(all C level executives) Note (South Korean American population of 1.8 million)/(329 million) = 0.5%

        (Japanese American C level executives)/(all C level executives)
        Note (Japanese American population of 1.5 million)/(329 million)
        = 0.5%

    2. A lot of social science studies don’t seem to disaggregate “white” Americans, even if they do with Asian Americans. There’s often just a white/”Caucasian” category. Many studies, even comparing immigrant assimilation almost treat a generic “white American” as the standard or “non-immigrant” culture, as if there was not norm variation in the group either.

      I understand that African Americans (aside from newer immigrants and their kids from Africa/the Caribbean) are treated as a common group understandably, but clearly subgroups of European/white Americans do differ as much as Asian Americans in cultural self-identification in many places (especially say the East coast) and possibly social norms. White “ethnic” identity (e.g. Italian, Jewish, Greek, old stock Yankee Anglo-identified etc.) is still a thing, even if there is a lot of intermarriage (Japanese Americans are also heavily intermarried/integrated by Asian-American standards but often disaggregated).

      Lots of debate over disaggregation or aggregation in the Asian-American discourse, much less in other pan-racial or pan-ethnic groups, in the US context of discussion, or at least that’s my impression (except in the African American context but that’s mostly trying to separate out old-stock African Americans vs. “immigrant” blacks, not particular ethnicities like with whites or Asians).

      1. Diasporan, can’t even count the number of economists, social scientists, and just plane regular people who have made the same observation you have about dis aggregating “white”. Including Glenn Loury, Wilfred Reilly.

        Post modernists scream with rage when this is brought up. There is no such thing as “white” or “whiteness” or “performing whiteness” or “white supremacy” or “white privilege”. These are all garbage concepts.

        Europeans should be dis aggregated.

  10. yes.

    Good that they separate South East Asian and Filipinos from East Asians.

    i have no idea why you wouldn’t think they’d not do that. it’s trivial in the census.

  11. “disagreeableness privilege in the executive suite”

    Considering that the study indicates greater social prejudice (6a, 6b) against South Asians than East Asians.

    “Together, these results suggest that, despite facing less prejudice than SAs and being equally motivated, EAs are less likely to attain leadership positions.“

  12. South Indian say: Interestingly Indian CEOs of at least the top companies – Google, Microsoft, Adobe and IBM, are all from South India. The stereotype is that South Indians are less assertive than North Indians. Though arguably the South Indians are more assertive than the East Asians.

    Diasporan says:who love to dwell on the Particular, and to search out the means, not the end, of life.”

    My favorite hobby horse, more AASI gives you philosophy and risk taking abilities. Then again does it also mean to philosophize.
    The Buddha (more likely a Sudra, though a Prince) and Hinduism contemplate on the meaning of life.
    In contrast Abrahamic religions are about the means to the after life.
    Are there parallels to North West Indians (more steppe, less AASI) and more inclined to dwell on the means.

    Diasporan says: East Asian Confucian deference to authority, especially since the study’s about the US born too

    Very insightful, specially reinforced by Communism too. If you raise your head above the wall you might get shot. just stick to being the best who are below the wall.

    girmit says:South Asians are outstanding political operatives and understand dynamic hierarchies (know who’s *ss to kiss). The courtiers of the managerial class.

    That gets to heart of the argument, Confucius/meritocracy ethos vs the political machinations (to be polite) to get ahead. Is this political machination culture age old, i.e playing the game to the King or whoever was the power behind the throne. For sure even in old Sri Lanka. Continued under the Colonial powers too.
    The South Asians who are getting ahead, appear to be from families who made it under the Kings and later the Colonial powers. Yes, some meritocracy was needed, but more to be able to use that ability to gain favor among the power.

    1. “My favorite hobby horse, more AASI gives you philosophy and risk taking abilities. Then again does it also mean to philosophize.
      The Buddha (more likely a Sudra, though a Prince)”

      I am not sure about that , i would say N-Indians are bigger risk takers than S-Indians. The top 10 Indian business men, you have couple of S-Indians only and that too from tech sector not from risk (and mostly illegal sectors like Land , mining mafia) . You would still find a big N-Indian business house in S-India/ E-India, but the reverse is hardly true.

      On Buddha being Shudra, i am not sure on that either. The society had not progressed enough for Shudras to be accepted as kings around that time. Most probably he was a Kshatriya.

      “The South Asians who are getting ahead, appear to be from families who made it under the Kings and later the Colonial powers.”

      LOL is it true even in Sri Lanka? Same people, just different nations.

      1. On Buddha being Shudra, i am not sure on that either. The society had not progressed enough for Shudras to be accepted as kings around that time. Most probably he was a Kshatriya.

        I think the word “society progressed” was probably in the negative.
        i.e. Indo-Aryanism, caste etc had not progressed to Eastern and North East India (eg Nepal)

        There is no mention of Kshatriya for the Buddha in the Mahavamsa. Later it does mention Brahmins.
        Chandragupta not providing alms to Brahmins.

        Bimimbisara (not the son of Chandragupta)
        Fom the Mahavamsa Chapter 2
        http://mahavamsa.org/mahavamsa/original-version/02-race-mahasammata/
        Bimbisara and the prince Siddhattha were friends, and friends likewise were the fathers of both. The Bodhisatta was five years older than Bimbisara; twenty-nine years old was he when he left (his father’s) house. When he had striven six years and thereafter had attained to wisdom, he, being thirty-five years old, visited Bimbisara. The virtuous Bimbisara was fifteen years old when he was anointed king by his own father, and when sixteen years had gone by since his coming to the throne, the Master preached his doctrine. Two and fifty years he reigned; fifteen years of his reign passed before the meeting with the Conqueror, and yet thirty-seven years (of his reign) followed in the lifetime of the Tathagata.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimbisara

        1. “Indo-Aryanism, caste etc had not progressed to Eastern and North East India”

          There were regions where Indo-aryanism hadn’t moved in East by Budddha’s time, but pretty sure Buddha’s own clan/Kingdom was Vedic already by that time. Lot of imagery and symbolism is pretty Vedic. The only thing could be that caste hadn’t hardened to such an extent that a shudra could have become King. In later time, both Nanda kings and Chandragupta were shudras so perhaps that’s a possibility.

          1. Saurav,

            The only thing could be that caste hadn’t hardened to such an extent that a shudra could have become King. In later time, both Nanda kings and Chandragupta were shudras so perhaps that’s a possibility.

            I think you are putting the cart before the horse.
            By definition, Shudras existed before Indo-Aryans. So Kings etc would be Shudra till the Indo-Aryan grip on power/culture (i.e. Vedic Brahaminism) made it near impossible.

            but pretty sure Buddha’s own clan/Kingdom was Vedic already by that time. Lot of imagery and symbolism is pretty Vedic.

            Couldnt there be the possibility that Vedic appropriated older symbolism and icons.
            I (think) Buddhist icons, temples predate Hindu Temple. Any Hindu Temples older than say Sanchi built around 300BC.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanchi

            The other example I often give is, caste marks on face and body are similar to African and First Australian body marks. i.e. Continuum of the First wave out of Africa.

          2. “. So Kings etc would be Shudra till the Indo-Aryan grip on power/culture (i.e. Vedic Brahaminism) made it near impossible.”

            I think that’s true, but the point is by the time Buddha came along Vedic Brahminism had a strong hold at least in the Gangetic belt. In a way the Nanda kings were the first Shudra kings in a long time to really displace the UC kings of Magadha. Almost all kings preceding them in the Mahajanpads were UC.

            “Couldnt there be the possibility that Vedic appropriated older symbolism and icons.”

            Its true of lot of things, but contemporary Buddhist records themselves paint a world where Vedic view, at least in the upper rung of the society was supreme. There are lot of Vedic rituals described in the contemporary Buddhist writers which Siddharth himself was part of.

            “I (think) Buddhist icons, temples predate Hindu Temple. Any Hindu Temples older than say Sanchi built around 300BC.”

            Yeah. Thats true of all of India (mostly) , but i dont know what to make of it though. Even in regions where you mostly had Hindu monarchs , the oldest living monument is sometimes Buddhist. Funny enough the oldest Hindu monument recorded and built are by Indo-greeks

          3. If nothing else this gives the lie to Indthing’s oft-repeated (never substantiated) claims that Hindu kings massacred Buddhists and destroyed all their temples and monuments.

      2. I am not sure about that , i would say N-Indians are bigger risk takers than S-Indians.
        You would still find a big N-Indian business house in S-India/ E-India, but the reverse is hardly true.

        Saurav, I think you are looking at risk from a business point of view.

        It was the South Indians who took the risk (of life) traveling to unknown lands, mostly as indentured slaves. Much like their ancient AASI ancestors who ventured into the unknown.

        The North Indians just followed, knowing those South Indians were not business like and ripe for exploitation. No different from the other Steppe types, the Europeans.

        1. Didn’t a whole bunch of indentured servant immigrants come from north India — Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bhojpuris etc. in places like Guyana, Fiji, Mauritius etc.

          It seems like the Indian diaspora is well represented from all over, in the past few centuries going abroad — Tamils, Gujaratis, Punjabis, Bengalis, North and South alike. It’s not like the Chinese where most emigrants hailed from a small region up until a couple generations ago (Cantonese, Pearl River Delta).

          Unless you’re talking about earlier with the Tamils and South Indians in SE Asia (before European colonialism)?

          1. Didn’t a whole bunch of indentured servant immigrants come from north India — Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bhojpuris etc. in places like Guyana, Fiji, Mauritius etc.

            I guess more familiar with South Indian Indentured workers.

            That said would not indentured worker from whichever part of India be the poorer segment of society, i.e the Shudras.

            Isnt there also restriction on crossing oceans for the twice born, i.e. the Indo-Aryan varnas.

          2. “Isnt there also restriction on crossing oceans for the twice born, i.e. the Indo-Aryan varnas”

            I think this is a latter addition. Like lot of the initial migration to S-E asia were heralded by Upper castes. During old days only few groups had that type of economic capital to make voyage and conduct business and stuff.

          3. Saurav,

            I think this is a latter addition. Like lot of the initial migration to S-E asia were heralded by Upper castes. During old days only few groups had that type of economic capital to make voyage and conduct business and stuff.

            Again you are jumping to conclusions, without evidence. Sea faring and Fisher folk of India Eastern India were not upper caste by any means.
            I would imagine fishermen with bigger boats did initial forays to SE Asia like Thailand. Then followed with bigger hordes of boats.

            Parallels to the Portuguese who came in one boat and set up a trading post. In the case of Eastern India, all that much capital would not have been needed to get to say Thailand.

            Anyway, Eastern India seaboard was not Indo-Aryanized till much later. Also it appears it was the Kalinga’s who did much of the initial forays into SE Asia.

          4. “Sea faring and Fisher folk of India Eastern India were not upper caste by any means.”

            Are bhai, i know that. But u r getting the timelines mixed up. By the time all this stuff was happening, they might not have been totally Indo Aryanized but they were sufficiently so. For example see the pre history of Cambodia

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_Cambodia

            By the time Indians were going places (in a big way), caste system (and Vedic Hinduism) had already made their mark on those areas. The Mahavamsa version of Prince Vijaya himself states that he was to be married to a Kshatriya. That would mean both the writers and the characters of this stories were sufficiently Aryanized at that point.

          5. Saurav,
            Sorry for the delay in replying. Got distracted from the distraction.

            Mahavamsa version of Prince Vijaya himself states that he was to be married to a Kshatriya.

            Not correct, no mention of Kshatriya anywhere in the Mahavamsa (or for that matter Arya).
            and so forth, to the city of Madhura16 in southern (India), to woo the daughter of the Pandu* king for their lord

            However, in the Culavamsa around 10AD, the Pandu* are referred to as Aryans.

            How then, just because he is your son, could there be for us a union with that prince who has sprung from the Ariya dynasty’?

            Footnote 1: What is meant is thr Aryan dynasty of the Pandyan (called Pandu
            in the Mahavamsa) in Southern India.
            Culavamsa Vol 1: page 239

            Two issues
            a) I have said Shudra (intentionally) to mean people with very little or (non existent) Steppe genes. Just AASI + InPe.
            b) Possible issues conceptualizing Shudras. maybe you see them as the oppressed, marginalized peoples of North West India. However as you get into South India (Eastern seaboard ?), almost all people, other than the Brahmins are Shudra castes. The Shudra’s are the oppressors (eg Vellalar and Mudaliyar castes) and the oppressed.

            What is Hinduism
            Easier to start with say Buddhism as a religion (not philosophy). A place with the main focus on a statue of Buddha or Stupa is Buddhist. eg Sanchi does not have statue of the Buddha.

            Vedic Hindusim:
            First when was the word Hindu added to the Vedic religion. Now, Hinduism is a pantheon of gods, many probably of ancient animistic/totemic origin. Is South Indian God Pillayar and Kali* part of Vedic Hinduism.

            In South and South West Sri Lanka we have Devol Deviyo and Uppavalan. Devol has not been absorbed into Hindu pantheon.
            Devol Deviyo
            http://exploresrilanka.lk/2018/05/in-the-protection-of-devol-deviyo/

            Upulvan Deviyo (now considered Vishnu)
            The beginnings of the Devalaya, described in the poem ‘Panditha Perakumba Siritha’, is a fascinating narrative. According to the narrative, King Dappula I (661–664 AD) of Anuradhapura, the ruler of the land at the time had seen an unusual dream, in which he was told of the arrival of Upulvan Deviyo in the form of a kihiri log (a type of wood) at Devundara. Taking heed, the very next day the King and his entourage has gone down to the shore of Devi Nuwara and lo and behold there was a kihiri log. The log was at once taken in to the custody of the King who commissioned it to be carved in relief of the Upulvan deity and then ceremonially enshrined within the Devundara Devalaya, a magnificent temple complex.
            http://exploresrilanka.lk/2015/02/discover-devundara/

        2. “South Indians” also took the risk of sailing to distant lands while North Indians were getting their asses kicked repeatedly.

          The only notable exceptions were the Marathas who were barely even “North Indian”.

      3. My impression has always been that NW indian entrepreneurs thrive in total bootstrap conditions where the founder has to be charismatic (and not too proud) to sell hard. The current wave of south indian ceos, and add to that major org leaders like raghuram rajan and gita gopinath, are great at navigating prestigious institutions. Tambrams have unflappable egos (no imposter syndrome), i say that as a sincere compliment, they aren’t like bongs who’ll get in kissing distance of power and wuss out.
        crude generalizations i know. Will also add that jains and aggarwals have a deadly combo of being hyper cerebral and entrepreneurial. The future seems to be theirs

  13. This study highlights how setting up a problem with the wrong variables can lead to completely erroneous conclusions.

    The author’s choose the binary of South vs East Asian, i.e. they choose geographic origin in Asia as the putative explanatory variable in explaining the skewed demographics of US CEOs etc.

    If these were indeed the right variables, then we should see US corporations have CEOs in proportion from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. However, this is not the case. The successful S Asians in the US are overwhelmingly Indian, particularly S. Indians, and especially S. Indian Brahmins.

    What distinguishes Indians from both E Asia and other S Asian countries is the depth and extent of English usage in daily life. This is much more than mere fluency. It is command. A command thats not merely a relic of British colonialism, but the presence of a large English speaking Christian minority and inter regional pressures that made English the de facto national language of the Indian elite.

    It is natural that intelligent (through selection) and socially competent (through English proficiency) immigrants would be extremely successful.

    So the lesson for East Asians here is not to try and be ‘assertive’, but to learn English at a high level of proficiency as soon as possible. The East Asian elites understand this and are willing to go to great lengths to make their children English fluent.
    https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/in-japan-local-students-flock-to-indian-schools-to-learn-english/

    This ‘brown privilege’ is a mere accident of history, nothing more.

    1. Vikram
      So the lesson for East Asians here is not to try and be ‘assertive’, but to learn English at a high level of proficiency as soon as possible.

      From the ABSTRACT of the research article

      we examined three categories of mechanisms—prejudice (intergroup), motivation (intrapersonal), and assertiveness (interpersonal)—WHILE CONTROLLING for demographics (e.g., birth country, ENGLISH FLUENCY, education, socioeconomic status).

  14. The study hasnt been published yet, it is forthcoming. Whats your explanation then for the lack of Pakistanis, Nepalis and Bangladeshis ? Their combined population is one third that of India. But their presence in US tech and business is proportionately far lower than Indians.

    1. They are just as capable. Probably lack of social capital, different cultural priorities. I think this is especially true for overly religious ghettoized majority Potahari Punjabi Pak Sunni Muslims of the UK who number like a million. Once priorities improve as assimilation occurs, improvements should be seen.

      1. “They are just as capable.”

        I doubt this.
        India has a disproportionately high number of heavily educated people for a country of its level of development, thanks to an early focus on higher education.
        (Btw I am not a fan of this approach but that’s a different discussion altogether)

        So that skews the already strong selection bias heavily. I expect Bangladesh to improve though, since they are now looking to move up the value chain.

        “Once priorities improve as assimilation occurs, improvements should be seen.”

        Only if social mobility increases dramatically in the west. Else, Indian-Americans who are in general richer will stay that way.

    2. Vikram,

      You really dont know to read a research article.
      First you said
      So the lesson for East Asians here is not to try and be ‘assertive’, but to learn English at a high level of proficiency as soon as possible.

      Whereas in the Abstract it said
      WHILE CONTROLLING for demographics (e.g., birth country, ENGLISH FLUENCY

      Now you say
      The study hasnt been published yet, it is forthcoming.

      PNAS FIRST PUBLISHED February 18, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918896117

      Contributed by Richard E. Nisbett, December 13, 2019 (sent for review October 30, 2019; reviewed by Stephen J. Ceci, Robert B. Cialdini, and Dov Cohen)

Comments are closed.