come from a political incident: After the Japanese occupation of Taiwan following Japan's invasion of China in 1895, the inhabitants tenaciously resisted their occupiers. Insurgencies in 1930 and 1931 resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Japanese settlers. The purpose of Furukawa's studies was to "penetrate the essence of the racial traits of the Taiwanese, who recently revolted and behaved so cruelly." Based on a finding that 41.2% of Taiwanese samples had type O blood, Furukawa assumed that the Taiwanese rebelliousness was genetic. His reasoning was supported by the fact that among the Ainu, whose temperament was characterized as submissive, only 23.8% is type O. In conclusion, Furukawa suggested that the Japanese should increase intermarriage with the Taiwanese to reduce the number of Taiwanese with type O blood. Masahiko Nomi Interest in the theory was revived in the 1970s with a book by Masahiko Nomi, a journalist with no medical background (he graduated from the engineering department of the University of Tokyo). Few Japanese psychologists criticized him at that time, so he continued to demonstrate statistically significant data in various fields and published several books with these results. Later after his death in 1981, Masahiko Nomi's work was said to be largely uncontrolled and anecdotal, and the methodology of his conclusions was unclear. Because of this, he was heavily criticized by the Japanese psychological community, although his books remain popular. His son, Toshitaka Nomi, continued to promote the theory with a series of books and by running the Institute of Blood Type Humanics. He later established the Human Science ABO Center for further research and publication in 2004. Background and criticism Criticism Kengo Nawata, a Japanese social psychologist, statistically analyzed three data sets of over 10,000 Japanese and American people in total. However, 65 of the 68 items yielded non-significant differences between blood types and the other three items showed relatively slight relationships. Therefore, the blood type explained only 0.3% of the whole differences of these data sets. This result suggests that blood type explained very little of people's personalities. Nawata concluded that there is no relevance of blood type for personality. Controversial statistically significant data However, some academic researchers have shown several statistically significant data in Japan and Korea. Akira Sakamoto and Kenji Yamazaki, Japanese social psychologists, analyzed 32,347 samples of annual opinion polls from 1978 through 1988. These results indicated that Japanese blood-typical stereotypes influenced their self-reported personalitieslike