Wheat vs. Rice: How China’s Culinary Divide Shapes Personality

Chad

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Journalist Thom Hartmann recently talked about an article featured in science titled (posted below): Large-Scale Psychological Differences Within China Explained by Rice Versus Wheat Agriculture.

As noted by the Washington journal article (posted below), Malcolm Gladwell brought up this topic in his book Outliers, which is where i must have first come across the idea. I'm surprised this question isn't talked about more, and i've often thought about the impact these seemingly innocuous differences have on our culture and even our genetic make up – or at least what is activated. Didn't Shakespeare say how the heat of Verona brought mens tempers to boil?

The idea of the article, as i understand it, is that rice paddies require collective work where a wheat field permits you to be more individualistic. Thom Hartmann mentions that rice paddies are interconnected so that if one persons rice paddy fails, it affects those surrounding him, therefore cooperation means survival.

If i recall correctly, Gladwell discusses more that, a rice paddy requires constant attention and care, checking water levels daily, where a wheat field permits the farmer to take it easy, thus cultivating a much more laid back kinda fellow. This is then taken further to infer our habits today, are effected by our heritage, thus do we have an inbuilt physiological expectation of certain 'rhythms' which would dictate when we rest? (ie. winter, because the fields are frozen, so we can dance around the village bon fire and be merry etc..)

I've often pondered a statement from a linguist who said that language is shaped by many things, in particular, his statement was that farmers accents are more clipped because any languid accent would get lost in the wind, over the space of a few fields, where a loud and sharper voice made the words easier to understand.

So all is posted below, including a link to Asian Scientists take

(and i hope this is in the right section, i did search to see if anything similar had been posted)


The extract from the paper:
Large-Scale Psychological Differences Within China Explained by Rice Versus Wheat Agriculture

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.

Received for publication 4 October 2013.
Accepted for publication 25 March 2014.

Editors summary

Individualism Rules?

On a diverse and large set of cognitive tests, subjects in East Asian countries are more inclined to display collectivist choices, whereas subjects in the United States are more inclined to score as individualists. Talhelm et al. (p. 603; see the Perspective by Henrich) suggest that one historical source of influence was societal patterns of farming rice versus wheat, based on three cognitive measures of individualism and collectivism in 1000 subjects from rice- and wheat-growing regions in China.

_http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6184/603

Thom Hartmann discusses a study that looked at the differences between people living in rice growing areas and wheat growing areas.

https://youtu.be/Qw64Gk06YBU

In China, as in many countries, the north-south divide runs deep. People from the north are seen as hale and hearty, while southerners are often portrayed as cunning, cultured traders. Northerners are taller than southerners. The north eats noodles, while the south eats rice—and according to new research, when it comes to personality, that difference has meant everything.

A study published Friday by a group of psychologists in the journal Science finds that China’s noodle-slurping northerners are more individualistic, show more “analytic thought” and divorce more frequently. By contrast, the authors write, rice-eating southerners show more hallmarks traditionally associated with East Asian culture, including more “holistic thought” and lower divorce rates.

The reason? Cultivating rice, the authors say, is a lot harder. Picture a rice paddy, its delicate seedlings tucked in a bed of water. They require careful tending and many hours of labor—by some estimates, twice as much as wheat—as well as reliance on irrigation systems that require neighborly cooperation. As the authors write, for southerners growing rice, “strict self-reliance might have meant starvation.”

Growing wheat, by contrast, the north’s staple grain, is much simpler. One Chinese farming guide from the 1600s quoted in the study advised aspiring farmers that “if one is short of labor power, it is best to grow wheat.”

To produce their findings, the authors evaluated the attitudes of 1,162 Han Chinese students in Beijing and Liaoning in the north and in Fujian, Guangdong, Yunnan and Sichuan in the south. To control for other factors that distinguish the north and south—such as climate, dialect and contact with herding cultures—the authors also analyzed differences between various neighboring counties in five central provinces along China’s rice-wheat border.

According to the authors, the influence of rice cultivation can help explain East Asia’s “strangely persistent interdependence.” For example, they say South Korea and Japan have remained less individualistic than Western countries, even as they’ve grown more wealthy.

The authors aren’t alone in observing the influence various crops have on shaping culture. Malcolm Gladwell in his 2008 book “Outliers” also drew connections between a hard-working ethic (measured by a willingness to fill out long, tedious questionnaires) to a historical tradition of rice cultivation in places such as South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, given that the farming of such crops is arguably an equally tedious chore.

But what will happen to such differences after people move away from tending such crops, as is now happening across China? The study cites findings that U.S. regions settled by Scottish and Irish herders show more violence even long after most herders’ descendants have found other lines of work as evidence that cultural traits stubbornly resist change, even over time. (Herders, psychologists theorize, are ready to put their lives on the line to protect their animals against thieves or attack.)

“In the case of China,” the authors conclude, “only time will tell.”

_http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/05/09/wheat-vs-rice-how-chinas-north-south-culinary-divide-shapes-personality/

_http://www.asianscientist.com/in-the-lab/rice-wheat-crop-choice-influence-collectivism-2014/


Edit: WSJ link added
 
Interesting, thanks for posting!

I would actually be very surprised if these effects were not due to the diet itself.

We generally think that we have domesticated wheat, or any other fruit/ vegetable. In fact it is the other way around - these plants have domesticted us by influencing us with their biochemical setup, to the extent that we are doing what is best for the proliferation of that particuar species.

So It may be that either wheat destroys part of what we would regard as being specific for humans by accident, kind of collateral damage, or more probably, that this strategy actually benefits the propagation of the species.
 
There's a lot of "food for thought" in this idea though it keeps the discourse strictly within the framework of farming.
 
Interesting article, itellsya. Thanks for sharing.

It is becoming increasingly clear from various studies and experiments in social and cognitive psychology that human behavior is inextricably and intimately linked with the specific social, cultural and biological environment in which the human group and their ancestors found themselves. This ties in with Carl Jung's theory of the collective unconscious and Rupert Sheldrake's work on morphic resonance - briefly discussed in the Instinct and Archetype thread. In this context, the farming style (rice vs wheat) and its concomitant relational style (collective vs individual) has apparently abided for generations after many people have become urbanized and given up an active farming lifestyle. Sheldrake and Jung's theories about a collective social memory transcending time and affecting human minds through the layers of the unconscious seem to find experimental validation through such research - or so it seems to me.

From what is known about the hunter-gatherer culture which predates farming, we can see that social structure and relational style of the hunter-gatherer people were largely egalitarian and strongly collectivist and cooperational in nature. From the research cited here, it seems that among farming communities, the rice farmers had a more collectivist orientation than wheat farmers. The differences seem to be progressively growing in quality and magnitude between these various groups. And adoption of these lifestyles perhaps depend to a large extent on genetic disposition and epigenetic/environmental effects. What I mean is when the change in environment, through natural causes like cataclysms and climate changes, as well as through man-made causes like invasions and conquests, made a particular life style unsustainable, people chose alternative styles which were different yet retained some of the older aspects which were deemed important.

I wonder if a hunter-gatherer group forced to find alternative means of livelihood would be more likely to take up rice farming if the climactic conditions allowed for it as it suited their previous disposition more compared to wheat farming - at least in the East/South-East Asian context.
 
Nickelbleu
I would actually be very surprised if these effects were not due to the diet itself.

I agree, an example may be, i think Terrence McKenna (i know) said something about South America and sweet potato consumption and that it raised oestogen levels. Imagine the effect this could have had on a unsuspecting tribe? :cheer:

(just found this: Estrogenic effect of yam ingestion in healthy postmenopausal women. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16093400)

Laura
though it keeps the discourse strictly within the framework of farming.

Very much, i suspect to bring too much attention to how we're influenced by things we never consider may have some of us asking too many questions, or so my mind goes. I even felt some of the articles sell the study as: Capitalism/Communism.

obyvatel
It is becoming increasingly clear from various studies and experiments in social and cognitive psychology that human behavior is inextricably and intimately linked with the specific social, cultural and biological environment in which the human group and their ancestors found themselves.
[snip]
Sheldrake and Jung's theories about a collective social memory transcending time and affecting human minds through the layers of the unconscious seem to find experimental validation through such research - or so it seems to me.

Yes, and the variables seem endless! i hasten to think that there are layers/levels which play out depending on the stimuli, like - let's say - chivalry is forgotten during times of famine, a weak or weakened will and a strong biological urge could easily override convention; cannibalism during the Soviet era as an example. From reading Le Bon's 'The Crowd' (which i haven't finished) there seem to be more entrenched traditional long term influences (environment, diet), but then as my architect friend is exploring, even small changes 'real time' cause people to behave in ways they are unaware of. Like the concept of 'priming'. And this kinda demonstrates why constant observation - of self and influences - is so beneficial. Knowing these differences, which factors hold more sway, could certainly put you ahead in terms of social control, Communism and mao for example? Maybe i'm over reaching.

Also, in the 'When the Body Says No thread' i posted a video that says starvation in in-vitro mothers (_en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_famine_of_1944) caused their children to have weight issues later in life, due to epigenetic effects. Now, there are a multitude of psychological factors to also consider; ie, mothers behaving manically around food, but it seems this significant change needed only 1-2 years to take effect. And we know trauma takes moments. If the sufferer doesn't come to terms with it before having children, perhaps the gene is still switched on, or they psychologically imprint the child or the psychological imprint switches on the gene! Apologies if i'm sliding off topic.

It makes you wonder what happened to compel humans to commit to such effort...perhaps there was a lot of rain at the time?

from the WSJ article:
"The reason? Cultivating rice, the authors say, is a lot harder. Picture a rice paddy, its delicate seedlings tucked in a bed of water. They require careful tending and many hours of labor—by some estimates, twice as much as wheat—as well as reliance on irrigation systems that require neighborly cooperation"

One Chinese farming guide from the 1600s quoted in the study advised aspiring farmers that “if one is short of labor power, it is best to grow wheat.

or the need for full employment? :P
 
I wonder if a hunter-gatherer group forced to find alternative means of livelihood would be more likely to take up rice farming if the climactic conditions allowed for it as it suited their previous disposition more compared to wheat farming - at least in the East/South-East Asian context.

Interesting question. The article says that rice farming is generally much more labour intensive than wheat farming is. If pressed to choose between the two with no further ecological considerations, I think they would prefer the one requiring less work. That frees up more time for other activities. Their communitarian culture may erode, but that's more likely a long-term consequence of not thinking far ahead.

A conscious culture would probably experiment with different grains to see which causes the least harm, as well as factor in the social consequences of adopting the grain's cultivation requirements. I wonder if that type of decision making has ever occurred?
 
whitecoast said:
I wonder if that type of decision making has ever occurred?

Probably not on a conscious level.

The other thing to consider is the "addictive" properties of wheat as opposed to rice, due to the opioid analogues in gluten containing grains.

My hypothesis is: If a society starts wheat farming for whatever reason, it is probably going to stick to that, even if the long-term benefits turn out to be less than the long-term damages. After all, from a species point of view, gluten containing grains have wreaked havoc with human physiology since the introduction of agriculture. It would be interesting to compare the impact of agriculture in predominantly wheat-based regions as opposed to rice-based regions. My guess is that the health impact in rice-based regions might be less pronounced (one clue could be the longevity traditionally associated with Asian cultures - of course this certainly is not monocausal).
 
How would a primarily animal-food diet compare in terms of interdependence and free time along with the wheat and rice farming?
 
It seems to me that the things that Gurdjieff asserted as true, are in fact true. In regards to the present discussion, formal mentation, as discussed in the chapter "The Arousing of Thought" in Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson.

Kris
 
RflctnOfU said:
It seems to me that the things that Gurdjieff asserted as true, are in fact true. In regards to the present discussion, formal mentation, as discussed in the chapter "The Arousing of Thought" in Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson.

Kris

I do not get what you are referring to, Kris.
 
monotonic said:
How would a primarily animal-food diet compare in terms of interdependence and free time along with the wheat and rice farming?

From what i've seen in the more genuine documentaries on tribal life today; they hunt once a day in the jungle, and have other things for snacking (i specifically saw a child nibbling on something, it looked like a carbohydrate), the women stayed behind, other than that, it seemed that daily life consisted of communication within the tribe with people taking jobs relevant to their status; in this case by their capabilities and whether the role is male/female. Also high up was grooming - each other as well as self, and particularly the elders who were unable - play, the kids kept pets to learn how to be responsible, and the adults tended to chores; one example was a couple who sought out specific ants in the forest to bite the arthritic leg (the 'venom' eased the pain). I have one documentary in mind, but if we look at what tribes and traditional cultures 'get up to' alot of it is security, bonding, and the questions of life. In this documentary i'm thinking of, they had decided frogs were hyper dimensional 'gateways'.

So having all that time can go either way. But strangely, for me, their free time was not too different to say a cat. They have work they must do and they do it expertly, but where possible they take it easy! :D

The superficial appearance changes from location to location, but everybody has a job relevant to them and the need, and they join celebrate, resolve disputes; but generally they seek to maintain equilibrium with self, with the community and with the environment. Farming does not promote equilibrium.

These are just my thoughts. As has been noted, tribal societies have aspects of corruption akin to our own, whether willfully or through losing touch with their heritage.

Further, how does a tribe that doesn't suffer sugar crashes function in comparison to a keto tribe?

Kind of relevant is this article, a study, 2 meals better than 6 small ones. On a glucose (?) burning diet, i'm unsure if the body could do it, or at least efficiently. Where if you are ketogenic, intermittent fasting is possible and beneficial. So if this is correct, the releasing of some of the energy from digestion, and the psychological mayhem caused by sugar, would leave you at least another 3 hours a day. _http://www.ktvz.com/Two-big-meals-may-be-better-than-six-small-ones/26011990
 
I came across this exchange with the C's and thought i'd post here for the record, perhaps the reasoning is as prosaic as the the South American cultures; It is just a case of the land dictating the lifestyle?

Laura said:
June 3, 1995
Frank, Laura, Terry and Jan, Tom French, Cherie Diez, SV

[...]

Q: (L) Well, I got told! Now, our questions. Why did the Incas and other South American cultures create their cultural environment in mountainous areas where they were forced to terrace to grow food, whereas the European culture developed on level terrain, mined in the mountains... (T) And a lot of them starved because they didn't use the mountains correctly...

A: Mountains were of a different nature in two cases.

Q: (L) So, the mountainous terrain was more fertile in one area than the other; is that the point we are getting at here?

A: Bingo!

Q: (J) That was what I thought. (T) Did the Europeans try terrace farming?

A: No.

Q: (L) Why? (T) Yeah, they built aqueducts, why not terraces?

A: Why should they try something unnecessary?


Q: (T) Why was it unnecessary? (L) No, we know that. They had plenty of arable land that was flat. Why was it necessary in South America? (J) Because they didn't. They had to use what they had.

A: Yes.

[...]
 
I came across this exchange with the C's and thought i'd post here for the record, perhaps the reasoning is as prosaic as the the South American cultures; It is just a case of the land dictating the lifestyle?
Here is an interesting theory how corn might have influenced the cannibalistic cultures in South America:

In 1977 Michael Harner suggested that the Aztecs might have practiced cannibalism to obtain animal proteins. A year later, Bernard R. Ortiz de Montellano objected that the Aztecs could obtain all the required amino acids from vegetable sources, and that their cannibalism was simply a thanksgiving ritual, because its occurrence generally coincided the maize harvest. But at about the same time other researchers showed that maize consumption could provoke brain serotonin deficiency, which, in turn, could provoke some neurobehavioral after-effects, such as the tendency towards aggressive behavior or religious/ideological fanaticism. In this study we attempt to show that a maize diet may cause serotonin deficiency and that this could explain cannibalism and other peculiarities of Aztec culture. The conclusions reached in this study are consistent with past and recent evidence of cannibalism among the Anasazi, a people that was similarly heavily dependent on maize for their nourishment. More broadly, our findings indicate a probable alimentary background for aggressive or fanatical behavior in populations heavily dependent on foods that can lower brain serotonin.

 
But at about the same time other researchers showed that maize consumption could provoke brain serotonin deficiency, which, in turn, could provoke some neurobehavioral after-effects, such as the tendency towards aggressive behavior or religious/ideological fanaticism.

Interestingly, my father told me that in his childhood, in his village, they were only eating a cornbread and no wheat bread, because of the regular floods that were happening in the village during the spring so they couldn't grow a wheat in the village. Perhaps that would explain some of the behavioral aspects of my father and his sister, such as extreme stubbornness even with the smallest of things.
 
Back
Top Bottom