By: Ryan Roi Cayas, Vincent Emmanuel Jamias, Carlo Marco, Rijel Marie Mendoza, and Chrisjomar Sta. Maria
If you made it to this article, chances are you were interested to know more about how Asians are superior to other races. But all of what you have seen so far is an example of pseudoscience – false information presented in a deceivingly scientific way.
Instead of solidifying our false claim that being Asian is superior, we will dissect our claim and talk about how we presented it to make it look convincing and believable. This would help us gain insights into how pseudoscience (and even disinformation) works and how to spot one.
What have we presented so far?
The main purpose of this pseudoscientific claim is to fuel racist propaganda about the intellectual superiority of Asians. Ultimately, this claim justifies Asians dominating on the world stage and hampering the potential of non-Asians to attain the same success that Asians experience.
The posters predominantly use the color red to convey a striking tone. There is also frequent use of straight edges instead of rounded and curvy elements to emphasize the gravity of the claims. Notice also how the “Asian face” in the design uses the stereotypical East Asian face to represent the diverse peoples all over the continent. The face is also deliberately drawn to look serious and to focus on the viewer, further adding to the authoritative mood of the posters.
The contents of the posters, meanwhile, focus on biological claims on Asians’ intellectual superiority. The contents were delivered semi-formally to establish credibility over the claims and rapport with the viewer. Although sources to each claim were provided, notice how small each source was displayed compared with the rest of the contents of the posters. Moreover, the sources were improperly cited as web addresses that could be inconvenient to access for a person who would view the posters as images, since viewers could not use the addresses as direct links to the cited references.
Why does it seem effective?
The reason pseudoscience is easily believable is that it isn’t completely false. The claims are based on actual facts making it seem difficult to debunk. For example, our claim is that Asians are smarter than Europeans or Africans because the brain size of the former has been confirmed to be bigger than the latter. It becomes easy then to make the connection that since bigger brains seem more “full” as if they have more knowledge, capacity, and ability, people who have them must be smarter. But in reality, in the full original study that found the difference in brain sizes between races, the researchers themselves stated that there is not enough evidence to prove that another race is superior to another in terms of intellect (Chen, 2017).
Pseudoscience also spreads easily because of how “clickbait-y” they are. Using phrases such as “a study claims that” makes it more appealing and seemingly credible on the surface even if the ideas being presented aren’t completely true. Additionally, the topics pseudoscience usually covers are controversial thus making avid supporters share them immediately while making those against them fired up to respond and try to debunk it as well. This is supported by writing the important controversial ideas on the headlines or title of the article or post so that it is easily seen and shared even without seeing the rest of the content.
But where are the red flags?
Logical fallacies like hasty generalization and correlation implying causation lie in the audience’s failure to see the bigger picture in the study and look at crucial variables and assumptions. Hasty generalization by stereotyping the Asian identity into just a subgroup of Asians, like the East Asians, ignores the presence of diversity and uniqueness among people of the same group (Gunderson, 2020). This dangerous reasoning gives rise to valid scientific claims distortedly communicated into something pseudoscience.
Shah’s article (2020) argued that the racial slur of Asians being good at math stems from Asian countries leading the world rankings in mathematical excellence. Those same countries also perform well in reading and literature, but there is no big deal that Asians are good at literature. This is a harmful generalization because individually unique skills are not highlighted and other specialties are masked off by the expectations for Asians to be good at math and science. And even within Asian groups, considerable variation in mathematics performance can be seen (Pang et. al., 2011). This suggests that not all Asians are good in this field and it puts unnecessary pressure on those who are not proficient in mathematics.
On the other hand, implying correlation with causation is also dangerous because it leads the reader (1) to drop significant details in an attempt to simplify things and (2) to gatekeep oneself if the reader does not have the characteristics that are “necessary” for the desired outcome such as intelligence and success. For example, without examining our claims, the readers run the risk of reducing excellence and competence simply as a product of race, genes, and practices that are prevalent to certain races but not widely spread practices of other races. Moreover, readers mistakenly conclude that one will not become successful because he/she is not Asian, that success boils down to race and an individual can do nothing to circumvent the perceived barrier.
Why are these red flags?
Logical fallacies like hasty generalization and correlation implying causation lie in the audience’s failure to see the bigger picture in the study and look at crucial variables and assumptions. Hasty generalization by stereotyping the Asian identity into just a subgroup of Asians, like the East Asians, ignores the presence of diversity and uniqueness among people of the same group (Gunderson, 2020). This dangerous reasoning gives rise to valid scientific claims distortedly communicated into something pseudoscience.
Shah’s article (2020) argued that the racial slur of Asians being good at math stems from Asian countries leading the world rankings in mathematical excellence. Those same countries also perform well in reading and literature, but there is no big deal that Asians are good at literature. This is a harmful generalization because individually unique skills are not highlighted and other specialties are masked off by the expectations for Asians to be good at math and science. And even within Asian groups, considerable variation in mathematics performance can be seen (Pang et. al., 2011). This suggests that not all Asians are good in this field and it puts unnecessary pressure on those who are not proficient in mathematics.
On the other hand, implying correlation with causation is also dangerous because it leads the reader (1) to drop significant details in an attempt to simplify things and (2) to gatekeep oneself if the reader does not have the characteristics that are “necessary” for the desired outcome such as intelligence and success. For example, without examining our claims, the readers run the risk of reducing excellence and competence simply as a product of race, genes, and practices that are prevalent to certain races but not widely spread practices of other races. Moreover, readers mistakenly conclude that one will not become successful because he/she is not Asian, that success boils down to race and an individual can do nothing to circumvent the perceived barrier.
More than the brains, the genes, and the rice: What is the bigger picture?
At this point, we now know that brains, genes, and rice do not make Asians smarter and better. It is more than just physiological factors. Cultural and institutional factors come into play as well.
One of the most obvious factors that contribute to this is the teaching style that teachers employ to their students in Asian schools. For example, teaching math and science through the traditional “chalk and talk” method gives teachers a greater grip on their students’ education, pushing them to meet higher standards. Meanwhile, western educational institutions criticize such traditional teaching methods and instead advocate for self-paced and independent learning, which some educators argue is counterproductive (Rohaidi, 2016). An article by Petre (2014) argues that children are left to their own devices under self-paced and independent learning. This leads to many distractions including chatting to their friends, while the teacher is elsewhere. It is an inefficient use of time and resources.
Culture is an impactful factor as well. As an example, part of East Asian culture is the Confucian value of exerting great effort in practice and memorization. Western cultures on the other hand are skeptical of the limits of memorization as a lower-order form of thinking and learning. American professors like Jo Boaler of Stanford University argue that relying on rote learning is not an effective way to learn – that pure memorization hampers the development of the number sense of students. Teaching math seeps as well into the childhood of East Asians through nursery rhymes, with some children’s songs already introducing them to the multiplication table. Lines of Japanese nursery rhymes are intricately written in such a way that the likes of “seven seven forty-nine” would sound pleasant and easily sung in Nihongo (Rohaidi, 2016).
Lastly, the environment greatly affects how a person develops cognition to think smarter and better. It is attributed to the environment of East Asian homes where parents push their children to excel, which is beyond the control of schools (Rohaidi, 2016). In India, ordinary people must be cleverer and smarter to get an advantage in such a huge competition on improving ways of living. With a large portion of the huge Indian population being poor, a combination of competition and poverty forces people to be more aware of any opportunities to grab or exploitations to be avoided. For example, Indians have much awareness of how to get around the city to avoid being taken advantage of by drivers who purposefully drive extra kilometers for unsuspected passengers just to raise the fare of their transport (Muzumdar, 2018). Survival is considerably difficult in Asia which equips Asians with the skills to be better than others.
As seen from our discussion, it is more on the nurturing aspect that makes Asians noticeably more proficient than others and not inherently on natural factors. This removes the conclusion that other races cannot have the same level of capabilities as Asians have because their physiological traits have not allowed them.
Key takeaway: How do we spot pseudoscience?
Now that we have dissected our claim and clarified the truth behind the “intellectual superiority” of Asians, we would like to leave you with a few suggestions to help you spot pseudoscience. And to help us visually understand this, let us imagine a pseudoscientific claim as one big iceberg: seemingly mundane and small on the surface, but contains deep secrets and unleashed truths underneath.
- NEVER STOP AT THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG: READ beyond the headline and the article.
It is important to go beyond the headline or even the entire article you are reading to ensure that you are not reacting to a claim impulsively. As discussed in our first suggestion, most of these pseudoscientific claims rely on clickbait or hooks to elicit strong emotions from the reader and a study by Martel et al. (2020) linked heightened emotions to believing in fake news. Simply put, the more we react strongly to a claim, the more likely we are influenced by it. Hence, taking time to read more about the claim beyond just one article will decrease the strong emotions initially elicited by the clickbait and allow you to be less swayed by the pseudoscientific claim.
This is relevant for users of social media who may impulsively share a post without even reading the whole thing. Unfortunately, social media platforms have played a significant role in proliferating false scientific claims. A study by Allgaier (2019), for instance, has found that out of 200 randomly selected Youtube videos regarding climate change, 107 denied climate change and contained misinformation. Social media users should be cautious of the content they are seeing. Reading more on the claim would help you from spreading false information and make you less likely to be influenced by these pseudoscientific claims.
- EXPLORE THE DEPTHS: IDENTIFY assumptions and supporting data
After looking at the surface level, it is now time to check what is underneath: the next thing to do is to check the validity of a claim by dissecting the claim itself, just like how we identified and disproved the elements of our pseudoscientific claim. This can be done by listing the assumptions implicit in the claim and examining the data presented to support the claim — if they even exist. If supporting facts seem incompatible with the assumptions of the claim, or if there are evident leaps in logic to connect the assumptions to the facts, then the claim is most likely pseudoscientific.
An overwhelming amount of pseudoscientific claims also do not have valid data to support the claims in the first place. For instance, a TV doctor named Dr. Oz has been infamously known to tout miracle weight loss pills, teeth whitening products, and the like in his own TV show which ran since 2009 (Lewis, 2015). However, an actual study by Korownyk et al. (2014) has identified that over half of his claims in his TV show are not rooted in any evidence, with some outright contradicting consensus in medical research. This shows how checking for supporting data can help us tell if a claim is pseudoscientific.
- LIGHT THE DARKNESS BENEATH: FACT-CHECK sweeping generalizations and big claims.
Now that we’ve read the content and seen the evidence given, we finally look at how accurate, correct, and related they are to the main idea being presented. Just like the big claims we’ve made in our poster, peddlers of pseudoscience are also likely to jump to conclusions and declare outrageous claims to elicit strong reactions from their intended readers. As an example, consider the following Facebook comment:

Here, the first commenter presents a barrage of chemicals that they claimed are present in vaccines. Without explicitly stating the dangers, the commenter banked on the overwhelming list of scientific jargon to make readers believe that these chemicals are harmful to the human body. While the comment was intentionally sarcastic to demonstrate how easy it is to fall for pseudoscientific claims regarding vaccines, this perfectly illustrates the importance of fact-checking outrageous claims that seemingly jump to conclusions.
To properly fact-check, we must first try to see if other sources are also making the same claims. Then, we must also check if these sources are credible, or if there are more credible sources debunking these claims. For the first part, we can simply look up the claims on a search engine like Google and look into the first few results. Afterward, in each of these sources, it is important to look into the following: history of the website, background of the author/s, date of the article, and sources used if any. If several sources making the same claims have no established presence, lack authors with reasonable credentials, present outdated information, or contain little to no supporting sources, then it is a big red flag and it is highly likely that the claim you have just read is pseudoscientific.
Going back to our example regarding harmful chemicals in vaccines, looking up “harmful chemicals vaccine” in Google leads to a list of credible sources debunking the claim as shown below.

The only website supporting the claim is from a non-profit organization called “Children’s Health Defense.” While this organization has a credible history of advocating for children’s health, the studies used to support the claims are misquoted. For instance, they made use of a study by Barile et al. (2012) to argue that exposure to a chemical called Thimerosal can lead to serious health conditions even if the study has not found a statistically significant link. The researchers have even cautioned about interpreting the results because of several limitations.
Conclusion
So for the avid “Asian supremacists”, sorry but you don’t get what you want here. And may this article be a reminder for us that pseudoscience – just like outright fake news – is everywhere. It may be daunting for us to thoroughly check each and every piece of information that is presented to us. But do not worry because we are many in fighting the selfish evils of pseudoscience. Especially in the age of social media where everyone can purposefully spread disinformation, it is our duty to read, to check, to analyze, and to inform one another whether the trending “scientific” claims that we see right now are actually scientific, or just a piece of pseudoscience. So that next time, we will not be hooked by a convincing claim and click the attached link, only to land in another “Oops! What you’ve seen is pseudoscience” article.
References:
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Determinism. In APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved December 19, 2021, from https://dictionary.apa.org/reductionism
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Reductionism. In APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved December 19, 2021, from https://dictionary.apa.org/reductionism
Allgaier, J. (2019). Science and environmental communication on YouTube: Strategically distorted communications in online videos on climate change and climate engineering. Frontiers in Communication, 4. Retrieved December 14, 2021, from https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036
Barile, J. P., Kuperminc, G. P., Weintraub, E. S., Mink, J. W., & Thompson, W. W. (2012). Thimerosal exposure in early life and neuropsychological outcomes 7-10 years later. Journal of pediatric psychology, 37(1), 106–118. Retrieved December 16, 2021, from https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsr048
Chen, S. (2017, January 29). Why do Asians have bigger brains than Europeans or Africans?. Retrieved December 15, 2021, from https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2017/01/672_222907.html
[Ericabirdly]. (2020). Anti-vaxxer vs. chemical composition of an apple [Screen Capture]. Retrieved December 20, 2021, from https://www.reddit.com/r/insanepeoplefacebook/comments/iakkpa/antivaxxer_vs_chemical_composition_of_an_apple/
Gunderson, L. (2020, July 28). Racist stereotyping of Asians as good at math masks inequities and harms students. Phys.org. Retrieved December 18, 2021, from https://phys.org/news/2020-07-racist-stereotyping-asians-good-math.html
Korownyk, C., Kolber, M. R., McCormack, J., Lam, V., Overbo, K., Cotton, C., Finley, C., Turgeon, R. D., Garrison, S., Lindblad, A. J., Banh, H. L., Campbell-Scherer, D., Vandermeer, B., & Allan, G. M. (2014). Televised medical talk shows–what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 349, g7346. Retrieved December 18, 2021, from https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7346
Lewis, T. (2015, April 23). 5 not-so-miraculous Dr. Oz claims. Retrieved December 20, 2021, from https://www.livescience.com/50576-dr-oz-miracle-claims.html
Martel, C., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D.G. (2020). Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. Cognitive Research, 5(47). Retrieved December 21, 2021, from https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00252-3
Muzumdar, S. (2018, August 19). Are Asians smarter than the rest? Sujay Muzumdar. https://medium.com/@sujaymuzumdar/are-asians-smarter-than-the-rest-1fa88ab1fc3
Pang, V. O., Han, P. P. & Pang, J. M. (2011). Asian American and Pacific Islander students: Equity and the achievement gap. Sage Journals, 40(8). Retrieved December 15, 2021, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X11424222?journalCode=edra
Petre, J. (2014, November 15). Minister tells schools to copy China – and ditch trendy teaching for ‘chalk and talk’: Teachers speaking in front of a class ‘much more effective than independent learning’. Daily Mail Online. Retrieved December 16, 2021, from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836240/Minister-tells-schools-copy-China-ditch-trendy-teaching-chalk-talk-Teachers-speaking-class-effective-independent-learning.html
Rohaidi, N. (2016, May 5). Why are Asians so good at maths and science? Asian Scientist. Retrieved December 19, 2021, from https://www.asianscientist.com/2016/05/academia/asian-students-good-maths-science/






























