Why is southeast Asia so advanced?

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
This suggestion is consistent with what national IQ data is available. Were the situation reversed, and nations which score in the lower IQ percentiles leaders in innovation and highly advanced in technology, I am confident that data would be used to refute my position.
[/QUOTE]
I am sure that there might be folks who would so argue, but I would oppose their claims, as well.

We have never even agreed to a consistent definition of intelligence. We have no idea how to consistently measure this vaguely identified phenomenon. Even if we think we found a way to measure it, we would still have to overcome the obstacle that a test devised in English or Mandarin or Arabic might not be able to accurately correlate numbers to a different test in French, Bantu, or Malay. (Given that the “100” keeps having to be reset as the raw numbers from different populations change, who has discovered the magic key that allows us to apply numbers in the 70s for places like Central America?)
Then, of course, there is the Flynn Effect that shows that everyone in the whole world, even in low scoring countries, is smarter than their grandparents, often by an order of magnitude–and no psychometric proponent has a defensible explanation why.

Nope. If there was an inverse correlation between IQ and wealth, I would still consider it an odd and amusing factoid that tells us exactly nothing about the world. Even after Lynn and Vanhanen hammered and shaved and distorted and invented their data to get the results they wanted, I would strongly suggest that if they did find a correlation in the real numbers (that were obscured by their tactics) it would actually demonstrate the reverse of their claim: i.e., wealth produces IQ; IQ does not produce wealth.

(I am even being polite enough to avoid showing the relative IQs and wealth of Edison and Tesla and Einstein vs Ford and Carnegie and Trump. :wink: )

102

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

We have no idea how to consistently measure this vaguely identified phenomenon.
[/quote]

Who is “we”? There are many psychologists who believe that intelligence tests can be used to measure intelligence. Maybe they are overconfident, but they are out there.

103

[QUOTE=China Guy]
Um, as pointed out previously, Korea and Japan are N Asia and not part of SE Asia.

If you look at Southeast Asia, it generally speaking comprises the following countries, which broadly have the following economies:
Singapore - Capitalist
Malaysia - Capitalist
Thailand - Capitalist
Myanmar - Communist
Brunei - Communist
Viet Nam - Communist
Indonesia - Capitalist
Laos - Communist
Kampuchea - Communist (I think)
Philipplines - Capitalist

By population, it’s definately in the capitalist camp. Even the commie die hards like Viet Nam have a pretty extensive % of their population driven by a capitalistic style economy.
[/QUOTE]

Hey, I didn’t put Japan and S. Korea into SE Asia, the OP did. As I said, I can do a historical and economic analysis for each and every country. Look at Myanmar. We have no idea how rich it could be. It’s growth, like many colonial provinces was stunted by colonial economic policies. Then, it’s current ruling junta basically destroyed the Myanmar economy when it attempted to isolate Myanmar from the world economy during the 80s. I don’t see that anything you’ve posted here contradicts anything I’ve posted.

104

[QUOTE=brazil84]
True, but if you can’t use your explanation to make predictions that might falsify or undermine your explanation, then it’s more of a “just so story” than an explanation.
[/QUOTE]

Nope, I clearly made predictions of Malaysia, China, Vietnam, and India, and I clearly explained why I thought those countries were the best poised for growth. I can’t help it if history and economics are too complex to fit into your worldview.

Again, you’ll have to explain how the Europeans managed to overcome their “innate intelligence” to foist upon themselves the Middle Ages. You are the one peddling “just so stories.”

105

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
The discussion around how much of intelligence is “innate,” and whether national intelligence correlates with wealth moves off the question of the OP.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn’t the one who brought up the discussion about intelligence.

Ok, so?

And here, you completely ignore my discussion of economics and history. If you invent something in the middle of a civil war, how likely is it that the invention will be propogated?

And here you completely ignore my discussion of economics. Let’s take the telephone for example. The invention of the telephone required the creation of a brand new market. Who would have taken the time and investment to create that market if they hadn’t been able to recover their expenses through the patent system (and a government enforce monopoly)?

As has been pointed out to you, there isn’t really good data available. And in any case, in order to prove this theory, you would need IQ data going back hundreds of years. All you’ve done is snapshot one current period in time and used bad data to “prove” a silly theory.

106

[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
Nope, I clearly made predictions of Malaysia, China, Vietnam, and India,
[/quote]

Here’s the first line from that paragraph:

Sorry, but you didn’t make a clear prediction.

How is that? Please tell me what you think my belief is and quote one of my “just so stories.”

107

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Here’s the first line from that paragraph:

Sorry, but you didn’t make a clear prediction.
[/QUOTE]

I’m doing historical and economic analysis, I’m not positing a scientific theory. There’s no requirement that I make 100% accurate predictions, and you’re demand for it is bizarre. Since I can’t say for certain that China won’t collapse into civil war or that India and Pakistan won’t go to war, my predictions won’t be 100% accurate, nor is there any requirement that they be in order for my historical or economic analysis to be accurate. People aren’t atoms bouncing around in a collider.

You seem to believe that (1) the average intelligence of a nation is tied to its wealth and/or scientific achievement and that (2) there is some marked difference in the average intelligence between nations. This is the “just so story.”

108

[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
Hey, I didn’t put Japan and S. Korea into SE Asia, the OP did. As I said, I can do a historical and economic analysis for each and every country. Look at Myanmar. We have no idea how rich it could be. It’s growth, like many colonial provinces was stunted by colonial economic policies. Then, it’s current ruling junta basically destroyed the Myanmar economy when it attempted to isolate Myanmar from the world economy during the 80s. I don’t see that anything you’ve posted here contradicts anything I’ve posted.
[/QUOTE]

I reread my earlier post. I thought I had clarified that I was using the communist countries of Southeast Asia as an example, rather than stating that all SE Asian countries were communist, but I see that my earlier post is confusing in this regard. I’m well aware that not all SE Asian countries were/are communist.

109

[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
I wasn’t the one who brought up the discussion about intelligence…
<snip…see rest of post, just above…>

[/QUOTE]

I was emphasizing the “innate” part, which is a separate discussion from intelligence itself.

Your point about the current snapshot of the world not being reflective of history is well taken, and certainly represents a key counter-argument to notions such as mine that current differences are a result of collective intelligence in addition to circumstance.

I certainly hope you are entirely right, and I am entirely wrong. The preponderance of current opinion is on your side. I find myself unconvinced, and the various explanations for why intelligence cannot be accurately measured or reasonably inferred unsatisfying.

I have tried to look at the world without any filters, including a filter that presupposes Nature has some sort of fairness principle (and I am not accusing you of using that filter yourself) in which populations are all given the same starter set.

As populations become more mobile, the hypothesis that circumstance and not differences in ability drives accomplishment will become more testable. If it is circumstance, then representatives from a given source population will become completely on par with everyone else within their adopted circumstance, and we can lay the issue to rest. If par is not obtained, or obtained by some immigrant populations and not others, the preponderance of current opinion will have to change, or else look for yet new explanations for observed differences among populations of people.

We are all of equal value, and all equally valuable to mankind. Every individual and every population bring a variety of attributes to the table of human existence which enrich all of us. Perhaps we can at least agree on that. In a more perfect world such a value system would let us stop segregating ourselves. Once we are all mutts, the world will be a better place, in my opinion.

110

[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
I’m doing historical and economic analysis, I’m not positing a scientific theory. There’s no requirement that I make 100% accurate predictions, and you’re demand for it is bizarre.
[/quote]

I’m not demanding 100% accurate predictions. 75% will do. 50% accurate is worthless.

What do you mean by “tied to”?

A “just so story” is an ad hoc explanation for something that’s difficult or impossible to test. The theory that there is a relationship between the average intelligence of a nation (as measured by IQ) is not ad hoc, nor is it impossible to test.

I’ll predict right now that in 15 years, sub-saharan Africa will still be poor and will continue to be so until the West becomes wealthy enough to take care of the region. Except for any country that is daring enough to admit large numbers of Chinese people.

I will also predict that Israel’s wealth will increase dramatically over the next 15 years now that so many Ashkenazi Jews have flooded in from the former Soviet Union.

By the way, I disagree that IQ (or intelligence) is “innate” if you define “innate” as being determined exclusively by genes. Clearly other factors affect intelligence in individuals and there is no reason this shouldn’t be true for populations.

Earlier in this thread, I noted that illiteracy is a symptom of low intelligence. But I also believe that a mentally challenging environment (such as being taught to read in school) can increase somebody’s intelligence.

111

[QUOTE=brazil84]

[Quote=tomndebb]
We have no idea how to consistently measure this vaguely identified phenomenon.
[/quote]
Who is “we”? There are many psychologists who believe that intelligence tests can be used to measure intelligence. Maybe they are overconfident, but they are out there.
[/QUOTE]
“We” would be the preponderance of the educational and psychological communities (along with a number of us interested laypersons) who find the claims of the psychometric-supporting members of the psychological community to be inconsistent and vague–even when we, ourselves, (reluctantly) look to the results of psychometric testing as imperfect tools to address specific issues with individual persons.

The definition remains vague. There is no universally agreed upon definition, even among psychometricists, just exactly what they are testing beyond the hypothetical g that is little more than a function of other arbitrarily chosen test values.

Because the definition is vague, we have no effective way to consistently measure it, which makes the use of such measures questionable, at best.

In addition, the results are highly suspect. Look at the chart assembled by Lynn and Vanhanen in the Wikipedia article on their book. There is no way in the world that a nation such as Jamaica (72) or Nigeria (67) or Ethiopia (63) could function on a day-to-day basis if the average intelligence of that nation, (mean, media, or mode), was at or below that of mental retardation. It simply could not be done. Each has functioning ports, industries, and governments (even if flawed by our standards). Two of those nations have even fielded armies for extended periods.
My daughter tests in the 70s. She can get up and dress herself and feed herself and go to work and (under close supervision) perform a number of manual tasks. She cannot plan for anything as simple as having her clothes laundered before she gets up in the morning. She cannot plan a menu and prepare a grocery list. She cannot arrange her time to be anywhere more than one day in advance of the event. She cannot read directions more complicated than a recipe (and often not that) and understand what she needs to do. No nation with half of its people functioning below the level of mental retardation could support even the flawed infrastructure they have. So, while I recognize that there are earnest people of good will pursuing the goal of developing reliable psychometric tests, I see no reason to change my view that we (the peoples of the world, or their scientists, or even their psychometricists) have no idea how to consistently measure this vaguely identified phenomenon.

112

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
“We” would be the preponderance of the educational and psychological communities (along with a number of us interested laypersons) who find the claims of the psychometric-supporting members of the psychological community to be inconsistent and vague–even when we, ourselves, (reluctantly) look to the results of psychometric testing as imperfect tools to address specific issues with individual persons.
[/quote]

Ok.

I’m not sure about that. Those nations seem to function pretty poorly. How would you expect a nation with average IQ of 70 and millions of people to function?

Anyway, one of your claims seems to undermine the other. If IQ is an imperfect measure of a vague concept, the low average IQ in Nigeria might be telling us something important, even if the message is a little garbled.

113

[QUOTE=brazil84]
I’m not sure about that. Those nations seem to function pretty poorly. How would you expect a nation with average IQ of 70 and millions of people to function?
[/QUOTE]
Based on my observations of people with IQs in the 70s? I would expect such a nation to simply not have a functioning airport or seaport. They might have a government, (based on the premise that brighter people can secure and holds power), but they could simply not have any actual infrastructure. You could not keep water and sewage flowing or traffic lights operating or provide electricity if half the nation had to be shown each day how to do any task more complicated than rolling dough or shovelling dirt. You could not find enough supervisors to keep than many people effectively employed. Trade would be impossible if half the country could not count their own change, much less budget to buy food, far less to act as retail clerks.
We are not talking about bad decisions by key engineers and planners or a work force that is inadequately trained; we are talking about half the population being unable to function above a third grade level in any capacity.

114

[QUOTE=brazil84]
I’m not demanding 100% accurate predictions. 75% will do. 50% accurate is worthless.
[/QUOTE]

Again, this is silly, you simply seem not to understand the nature of historical or economic analysis. If tomorrow, global warming shuts down the Indian monsoon cycle, then Indian agriculture will collapse, causing the Indian economy to contract signficantly. Because there are too many unknowns in the future, current trends may not hold. That doesn’t in any way falsify my analysis.

I made several statements in my original post–that research requires money, that the US infused money into S. Korea and Japan, that small communist economies will disincentive research, that colonialism stunted economic growth in certain colonies, etc., etc. Instead of actually countering any of these statements with an actual argument, you simply demand accurate predictions, while completely ignoring that trends can be disrupted by any number of natural and man-made forces. In short, it is apparent that you have no counter-argument.

You think that intelligence is a factor in wealth?

Again, nothing I’ve posted is ad-hoc. I can show you the data on communist economies, or on economic incentivization from patents. I didn’t think I’d actually have to do that, since most of this is general knowledge.

Of course, I actually explained why I thought the countries I picked out would have economic growth. You, on the other hand, haven’t explained anything. Your explanation is nothing like mine, and if this is the tack you’re going to take, then this discussion is fruitless. :rolleyes:

Then you are using the term intelligence to mean “education,” and if you’d just said that earlier in the thread, you’d have saved everyone a lot of trouble.

115

[QUOTE=brazil84]
How would you expect a nation with average IQ of 70 and millions of people to function?
[/QUOTE]

Simply volunteer at a local Mentally Handicapped Work Center. Your perception of persons with an IQ of 70 seem a little off. To me it seems like they are about 8 years old.

116

[QUOTE=Burrido]
Simply volunteer at a local Mentally Handicapped Work Center. Your perception of persons with an IQ of 70 seem a little off. To me it seems like they are about 8 years old.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure that would be a good comparison. For one thing, an IQ of 70 in a American is frequently associated with other physical and emotional problems. For another, a country like Nigeria has got to have a large number of smart people, even if the average IQ is 70.

117

[QUOTE=JKellyMap]
If you think widespread illiteracy in any region is a result of inherent inability to learn how to read, you have a lot of counter-examples to explain – such as, say, Ethiopian babies adopted by suburban U.S. couples, or the fact that Cuba went from mostly illiterate to almost entirely literate in a few years (obviously without a wholesale replacement of the population with a new, “higher-IQ” one).
[/QUOTE]

Cuba was NOT mostly illiterate before Fidel, in fact in the 1950’s Cuba’s literacy rate was 76%. You can see the statistics in this site. In fact, from the same site, Cuba, Argentina, Chile, and Costa Rica have comparible literacy rates today, and had also comparible literacy rates in the 1950’s, which seems to indicate that the current government in Cuba had little to do with the increased literacy rate, despite claims to the contrary.

118

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
I was emphasizing the “innate” part, which is a separate discussion from intelligence itself.
[/QUOTE]

Well, what exactly are you talking about then? IQs are supposed to be predictors for educational achievement–that is, they are supposed to predict the maximum capacity to learn. Whether or not they actually do that is open for debate, but when people bring in IQ into a discussion such as this, that to me says that they are talking about something innate, rathern than something pointing to educational infrastructure or culture or economics. If you want to posit that countries which have higher education levels tend to have more scientific achievements, I don’t think you’ll find many people to argue with you.

And yet, you, nor anyone else in this thread has explained how the collective intelligence of the Europeans dropped so suddenly and starkly during the Middle Ages. Of course, if you’re not using intelligence to mean something innate (that is, not IQ), then one can look to the collapse of the Roman Empire, the establishment of the Feudal system, the church’s monopoly on education, the plague, and an endless series of wars to explain the economic contraction. But if you’re not using the term intelligence to mean something innate, then collective intelligence must be the result of circumstance, and not something in addition to circumstance.

Well, depending on how you define intelligence, it can be measured. I just took the bar exam, which is a measure of my mastery of certain subjects of the law. If we limit our discussion of intelligence to mastery of specific legal topics, then the bar exam measure intelligence. If you are trying to use intelligence in a broader sense, though, you need to clearly define what it is you mean by intelligence. And if you’re going to rely on IQ, then once again, that to me says that you are trying to take a measure of innate intelligence.

If you’re not talking about innate characteristics, then what does nature have to do with this? You’re all over the map here.

Why? If you’re not talking about innate characteristics, then how will this become more testable?

This already happens every day. India is a relatively poor country. Indian immigrants in the US have one of the highest median incomes of any ethnic groups (the last time I checked it was the highest, but that could have changed). I guess your theory (whatever it is, since I can’t figure it out), is disproved.

It seems to me that you are the one intent on segregating people with arbitrary notions of “collective intelligence.”

119

Try to claim that these countries are doing well because they are ‘smart’ is ridiculous.

The answer is clear - the countries that have done well in Asia are the ones which have embraced capitalism and free trade. What’s the difference between North Korea and South Korea? North Korea is a capitalist country with open borders, and North Korea is a communist country with relatively closed borders.

Hong Kong started with the same population mix as China - no intelligence difference. Hong Kong was run in a “Laissez-Faire” manner by the British governor, and to this day has one of the least regulated economic systems in the world Hong Kong has been an economic miracle - a magnet for foreign capital.

You can look at countries that made major turnarounds in their economic fortunes, and it’s always correlated with the opening of trade and reduction of restrictions on economic behaviour. The poorest countries in the region (for example, Vietnam) were the last remnants of communist economics. Vietnam is starting to turn around, but only because it has gradually accepted capitalism and trade into the mix.

South Korea, Singapore, Indonedia, and even Japan used to be thought of as ‘sweat shop’ nations - places which only had the advantage of very cheap labor. These countries had populations that had strong work ethics - they had to, since they worked their asses off just to survive.

These countries started off as sweatshop nations, allowed themselves to go through that phase, and saw huge influxes of foreign capital as as result. That allowed them to build modern infrastructures and drive up the value of their labor, which improved the lives of the people, allowed them to become better educated and healthy, and gave them even more of a competitive advantage. It’s a ‘virtuous cycle’. Having started with virtually no infrastructure, they started fresh with the latest in technology and building techniques and gained yet another advantage.

The same thing happened with Germany to some extent. Having a good chunk of its (old) industrial base destroyed in WWII, and then rebuilding with more modern factories and infrastructure gave them an early advantage in the 1950’s and 1960’s, and their economy exploded. (West Germany, that is. east Germany remained a communist hellhole).

So here’s the ingredients, if you want to cook up your own economic miracle:

  1. A stable government
  2. Economic freedom
  3. Free Trade
  4. A peaceful population with a strong work ethic
  5. A comparative advantage in cheap labor, to start.

The last is actually rather important. Nations that have other comparative advantages, specifically around resources, have not done so well, despite getting huge influxes of foreign capital. The reason is that the resources usually fall quickly into the hands of governments or oligarchs, and therefore actually prop up centralized systems of government. The middle east is a good example. Foreign aid to Africa is another - rather than building wealth from the ground up through the people (and therefore developing robust, distributed economies), the aid flows in to corrupt governments, which use it to buy off cronies and maintain the systems that cause the poverty in the first place.

When the comparative advantage comes from the people themselves, governments are forced to back off and allow their economies to develop.

So if you want to predict the next emerging first-world countries, just make a list of the biggest ‘sweat shop’ nations today, and filter the list by selecting the ones that have the most open markets and the least amount of government interference.

120

[QUOTE=brazil84]
I’m not sure that would be a good comparison. For one thing, an IQ of 70 in a American is frequently associated with other physical and emotional problems.
[/QUOTE]
And this is different from people with IQs of 70 in other countries? Do we have a citation for this?
[QUOTE=brazil84]
For another, a country like Nigeria has got to have a large number of smart people, even if the average IQ is 70.
[/QUOTE]
So?

To function, at all, a country has to have a majority (not an average) of people who are capable of running their day-to-day lives without supervision. They need to be able to figure out what foods to eat, how to secure the food, how to prepare it, etc. You need people who can make sufficient repairs to keep their housing or trtansportation intact. You need people who can reliably understand concepts of time and how to incorporate that into their lives. In an industrial society, that would mean being able to know how to arrange to go into work each day, something that can be accomplished with an alarm clock, but in an agrarian society, that would require understanding when to plant which crops, when to thin and cultivate, when to weed, when to harvest, how to prepare for storage, and how to store the crops–activities requiring more, not less, intelligence. The hypothetical Nigerians would include a population of which half either cannot conduct business (either as clerks or customers in stores) in the industrial/commercial cities or actually survive raising their own crops in the countryside.