Thailand as a SERIOUS country

[Thai at Heart]

Thailand is a fantastic country, unfortunately cursed by its populace. There are some theories about how tropical peoples are are incapable of looking to the future. The large proportion of such in Thailand certainly is a viable argument for just such theories- having never had to endure long, cold winters of food scarcity leads to the brain's evolution lacking the necessary hardware to plan for the future.

It also explains why northern Chinese are historically so successful immigrating to SEA countries.

It's all in the frontal lobes, and if PC scripture were not so recently inbedded in our society, we might well make scientific studies on cadaver brains.

Alas, dogs, horse, sheep and cattle can have differences based in genetic heritage, but not humans. Another example of how PC is truly the rotten fruit of humanity's tree of knowledge.

Disagree. Thailand is a great country, not the best but certainly not the worst, and it's biggest curse is not the populace per se but the lack of good leadership.

Too many sen yai spoil the tom ka.

Really, but ... CENSORED ... It has been said a populace deserves its leaders. While we see protests, of sorts, aren't they really about re distributing power toward themselves? Aren't Thais too feudal in their thinkingto ever support a fair society?

Well that's a nice phrase in a western concept with freedom of speech and all the other trappings.

Thai people have been manipulated and when the blinkers come off, it is going to be quite nasty.

[Thai at Heart]

Comos said :

"First, there is no scientific evidence of skin colour being a result of natural selection. In fact, the general scientific consensus on this point at the moment is that it is largely a result of sexual selection (a mechanism also first described by Darwin, but lesser known to laymen).

This point alone shows that your very assumptions are wrong to begin with. It is very easy to see what you want to see, read what you want to read and hear what you want to hear.,

Second, instead of reading opinions from journalists like Gladwell, I suggest you study the fact-based results of scientists, such as for example Jared Diamond."

My reply.

I believe you may be wrong...skin colour is determined by "natural selection" and has to do with the amount of vitamin D the body requires... do some reading http://www.nasw.org/vitamin-d-levels-determined-how-human-skin-color-evolved-1

While a post by a "senior English and Biology major" should perhaps not be taken too seriously, there is indeed a need to modify my statement on scientific consensus; skin colour differences are generally believed by scientists to be the result of a combination of the natural selection and sexual selection mechanisms, and quite possibly in combination with other mechanisms. (For those who might think the natural selection link to sunlight is "obvious", note that skin cancer typically develops slowly and kills the indidual after reproduction. In fact, skin colour differences are still not fully understood.)

This only emphasizes the message in my response. Many phenomena in nature are far more complex than one may think at first. Therefore they are best left to skilled scientists to research and explain.

Ok so skin colour is a result of natural selection from climate factors , seems we can agree, yet no way brain function can be- is that your argument?

'cause I disagree.

The same mechanism that makes skin dark, or light-also shapes the brain.

Tropics ; Lots of food around, bananas, fish...no need to plan for a future. No need to work hard to survive .

vs.

North; Long cold winter limited food, need lots of planning- smoke meat and gather roots like mad, work hard to survive.

Why is this such a repulsive idea? It seems like common sense to me.

Maybe you want to compare the Vikings and the Eskimos as they lived together for a while. Or the Mongols and the Cantonese. Or in the US compare the plains Indians with the Indians living in Florida or the West coast?

If you don't mind can I ask do you feel seriously at a disadvantage when discussing things like the above with a person who is a college graduate? Do you think there is a parallel between your lack of education and people taking you seriously?

It strikes me that people who don't take Thailand seriously have not been taken seriously themselves because of lack of education or reasoning ability or whatever.

Seems like going through the all the old racial stereotypes would at some point seem repetitive and better left in the 1930's.

A protestant work ethic is probably more relevant.

[thailiketoo]

Maybe you want to compare the Vikings and the Eskimos as they lived together for a while. Or the Mongols and the Cantonese. Or in the US compare the plains Indians with the Indians living in Florida or the West coast?

If you don't mind can I ask do you feel seriously at a disadvantage when discussing things like the above with a person who is a college graduate? Do you think there is a parallel between your lack of education and people taking you seriously?

It strikes me that people who don't take Thailand seriously have not been taken seriously themselves because of lack of education or reasoning ability or whatever.

Seems like going through the all the old racial stereotypes would at some point seem repetitive and better left in the 1930's.

A protestant work ethic is probably more relevant.

Vikings vs Eskimos, Mongols vs Cantonese, US Plains Indians vs West coast or Seminole Indians. Which ones had a protestant work ethic? Or modern day China, Japan, Korea vs Western economies?

I think one of the main reasons for the fall of Singapore and Pearl Harbor was the myth of Western superiority and the success of the Protestant work ethic which by the 1930's was a myth.

Edited April 25, 2014 by thailiketoo