If America never colonized the Philippines, would the Philippines become one of the richest countries in the world today?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,547
SoCal
He has a daughter who's in provincial politics, maybe her.

I guess the smaller upperclass never really wanted to go forward. They just wanted to keep this economic uneducated "overseas foreign worker" model which is half of the national income.
Who are the smaller upper class in the Philippines?
 
Aug 2019
157
Netherlands
Who are the smaller upper class in the Philippines?
The real estate, bankers, manufacturers, corporate owners, political dynasties etc. Names like Ayala, Lim, Zobel and many many more, but always outnumbered by the poor. These families were running the show already during the colonial times actually. Sometimes they even call theirselves in the same style like european royalty. It would sound like alfredo de guzman III or something.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,547
SoCal
The real estate, bankers, manufacturers, corporate owners, political dynasties etc. Names like Ayala, Lim, Zobel and many many more, but always outnumbered by the poor. These families were running the show already during the colonial times actually. Sometimes they even call theirselves in the same style like european royalty. It would sound like alfredo de guzman III or something.

Is Duterte a people's man?
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,841
T'Republic of Yorkshire
This article argues that Ashkenazi Jews evolved a very high average IQ in comparison to other groups. I was simply speculating that if divergent evolution could occur here, why not in other cases as well? Indeed, I simply expressed openness to the hypothesis that some of the achievement gap between the First World and the Third World might have to do with evolution.



Yeah, that seems like good advice.



Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting question here as to whether or not we can actually discuss evolution here if we don't explicitly talk about genetics.



TBH, I'm simply aware of how evolution works. If two populations have an average IQ of 100, and in one population everyone reproduces equally while in the other population, only the cognitive elite reproduces while everyone else remains childless, the latter population should gradually evolve to have a higher average IQ than the former population--assuming, of course, that neither of these populations are actually going to experience any environmental changes that are going to affect their IQs. If this is theoretically possible, is it so unreasonable to speculate about the possibility that there might have been divergent evolution in regards to this and/or other human traits throughout history? I get the genetics rule, so maybe it's unacceptable to talk about this here, but in a place more suited for this discussion, I certainly don't think that this discussion should be off-limits.

It's funny how liberals in the US criticize conservatives for being evolution deniers at the same time that they deny any possibility that different human groups might have evolved differently on any meaningful traits and aggressively ostracize anyone (such as Arthur Jensen, starting from 1969) who speculates otherwise.

BTW, I think that this article about the false dichotomy between race denial and racism is a good article for you and everyone else here to read:


Basically, one can acknowledge the possibility of evolutionary differences without actually advocating in favor of discrimination based on race or ethnicity. Nowadays anything that's not "race denial" is automatically categorized as racism, and as this article argues, it might very well be counterproductive.



I stand by what I wrote in regards to Filipinos. I think that there might very well be significant room for improvement in the Philippines by improving the environment there (for instance, Google things such as iodine deficiency, malnutrition, and parasitic disease load in the Philippines); after all, the Philippines' score seems extremely low even by the standards of developing countries. That said, though, I am unsure if the Philippines is ever going to be able to perform at the same level as Western European countries--let alone countries such as Japan, Estonia, and Singapore. In order to perform as well as Western Europe--let alone Japan and Singapore--the Philippines is going to need to improve its PISA performance by at least one-and-a-half standard deviations (from 350 to 500+; 100 points is one standard deviation on PISA). I don't know if such a large environmental change in average IQ scores has ever actually been observed. I know that, here in the US, racial and ethnic achievement gaps have been extremely difficult to close over the last several decades:


Presumably conditions in the Third World--including in the Philippines--would be worse--perhaps much worse--than for black Americans (who nevertheless live in a First World country even though they're poorer than US whites are)--which might suggest more room for improvement. That said, though, the failure to close racial and ethnic achievement gaps here in the US (in spite of decades of affirmative action) over the last several decades does not exactly inspire confidence in me in regards to achieving full convergence between low-performing Third World countries and the First World in regards to things such as the PISA exam. Rather than engaging in moralistic criticism against me for this belief of mine, it would be interesting to show some evidence of Third World countries that performed extremely poorly in the past and yet nevertheless perform at First World levels today. Some Third World countries--such as Vietnam and China--performed very well on PISA even when they were poor, so poverty alone would not necessarily be a sufficient explanation of the underperformance of various other Third World countries on the PISA exam.

You didn't learn anything from your last suspension, did you? You are banned for 3 days while the mods decide if a longer suspension will be applied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mastersonmcvoidson

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,474
Portugal
I will not address Futurist questions, since he was temporary suspended, and since I think his questions are out of the theme and rules of this forum.

I think health wise Duterte will have already trouble to fullfill this first term, he's old and looks tired already. There are so many things to do in that country and corruption is so deeply cultured. This job is too big for him.
Isn’t Dutarte that nuts that send people from the Helicopter?

Philippine leader says once threw man from helicopter, would do it again
 
Aug 2019
157
Netherlands
Aug 2019
157
Netherlands
Since the independence, the Pilippino working class never had the idea that they could improve the country. The idea is to go abroad and build a future there, or save money, return, and improve the status of their families by building big houses and such. This was during early years possible by the USA who took in a number of philippino's each year and the educational system with the english language. Later such dreams would be Europe, Hong Kong and Japan. And then there was the possibility of uneducated people to work in the Middle-East too. So in the end you have a poor country with a consumer economy that depends very much on the overseas workers. The Philippino top class is ruling the country and very much occupied with selling stuff to this consumer economy, so there isn't much reason to change things..
 
Last edited:

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
6,096
This article argues that Ashkenazi Jews evolved a very high average IQ in comparison to other groups. I was simply speculating that if divergent evolution could occur here, why not in other cases as well? Indeed, I simply expressed openness to the hypothesis that some of the achievement gap between the First World and the Third World might have to do with evolution.
That's just daft. Evolution explains nothing re this. It's more like already Charles Peguy observed around 1900 – one has to remember that the Jews have been a literate people for 2000 years, the Protestant Christians for 400 years, but your average Catholic Frenchman for only three generations.

You can switch out all manner of populations for the French in it. Tradition is the great teacher here. You can also add the social selection made possible by the fact that Jews in the 19th c. as society liberalized and opened up to them had a tendency of selecting to go for certain walks of life where the odds were less stacked against them. One was academia, since the ideals of universality in knowledge provided an opportunity to at least get something of a fair hearing. Other things was new fields, modern phenomenon, where the Jews could compete on a relatively even playing field because they were new enough to not already accommodate some group with centuries of investment, like the modern public theatre, journalism, novel writing etc. The Jews achieved relative greater success there compared to elsewhere because clever Jewish individuals chose to try to make it there in greater proportion than the majority population – because they were sizing up the challenges against them and making rational choices. But they were never cleverer than anyone else – they just went for the areas where they could get the best shot at success, and being restricted elsewhere as a group they more success relatively in these. (And then it feed more antisemitism since part of the make-up of that was a hate of modernity, and they could observe a relatively disproportionate amount of Jews making it precisely in fields that were emblematic of the modernity they hated.)

The whole idea of Jews being clever from supposed natural selection mostly says that people doing science tend to know feck all about history (ignorance on the level of obliviousness of there being important things to know) and so get things atrociously wrong, usually due to their own prejudices, whether positive or negative about some group.

There's no evolutionary preassure behind any of it, and the effects are too ephemeral to have any kind of biological foundation. If the Ashkenazis were "naturally cleverer" somehow, they would have gone on to manifest this in Israel, and they don't. And it's pretty obvious that since they are now part of a normal majority population in a modern society spreading out more evenly as a consequence, the purely social mechanisms that tended to get them to manifest themselves as a minority previously and elsewhere are simply not at hand.
 
Feb 2019
1,134
Serbia
I won't respond to everything because it's pretty hard to do so without getting into genetics.

This article argues that Ashkenazi Jews evolved a very high average IQ in comparison to other groups. I was simply speculating that if divergent evolution could occur here, why not in other cases as well? Indeed, I simply expressed openness to the hypothesis that some of the achievement gap between the First World and the Third World might have to do with evolution.
Larrey gave a more lengthy answer. That's not how it works at all and the theory of some natural selection is untrue. Tradition and historical circumstances have more to do with it and frankly make infinitely more sense than claiming that a certain group is naturally superior because they evolved to be better. In other words, history is more plausible than scientific racism.

Yeah, that seems like good advice.
And you ignored it.

Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting question here as to whether or not we can actually discuss evolution here if we don't explicitly talk about genetics.
We don't need to discuss evolution here because it's not how this works. If you can't stay away from genetics don't start things like these to begin with.

TBH, I'm simply aware of how evolution works.
Your first paragraph goes against this assertion.

It's funny how liberals in the US criticize conservatives for being evolution deniers at the same time that they deny any possibility that different human groups might have evolved differently on any meaningful traits and aggressively ostracize anyone (such as Arthur Jensen, starting from 1969) who speculates otherwise.
Speculations are not facts, you seem to put forward your own assumptions and guesses as factual and justify it because they're ''plausible'' to you. You're also bringing current politics into this which tells a lot on where this is going.


BTW, I think that this article about the false dichotomy between race denial and racism is a good article for you and everyone else here to read:
You expect me to take the Unz Review, an ''alternative media'' (Read: Radical, to use a lighter term.) site run by a Holocaust denier which has been labeled as anti-Semitic by the ADL as a credible source on anything, let alone race?

I stand by what I wrote in regards to Filipinos. I think that there might very well be significant room for improvement in the Philippines by improving the environment there (for instance, Google things such as iodine deficiency, malnutrition, and parasitic disease load in the Philippines); after all, the Philippines' score seems extremely low even by the standards of developing countries. That said, though, I am unsure if the Philippines is ever going to be able to perform at the same level as Western European countries--let alone countries such as Japan, Estonia, and Singapore. In order to perform as well as Western Europe--let alone Japan and Singapore--the Philippines is going to need to improve its PISA performance by at least one-and-a-half standard deviations (from 350 to 500+; 100 points is one standard deviation on PISA). I don't know if such a large environmental change in average IQ scores has ever actually been observed. I know that, here in the US, racial and ethnic achievement gaps have been extremely difficult to close over the last several decades:
I know about iodine deficiency. Let's not play word games, this is about how ''evolution'' and ''environmental factors'' cause certain groups, in this case Filipinos, to be more stupid. I'm trying to re-interpret it as something more rational but it seems that you genuinely believe in this. The PISA test is given to first year high school students to test their knowledge and logical ability, it's not an IQ test no matter how much you twist it and misread it. Declaring an entire nation to be stupid because some 15 year olds had low scores on a test which you, perhaps willfully, misrepresent is concerning to say the least.

Also, a Medium opinion article on Murray... really now?

Presumably conditions in the Third World--including in the Philippines--would be worse--perhaps much worse--than for black Americans (who nevertheless live in a First World country even though they're poorer than US whites are)--which might suggest more room for improvement. That said, though, the failure to close racial and ethnic achievement gaps here in the US (in spite of decades of affirmative action) over the last several decades does not exactly inspire confidence in me in regards to achieving full convergence between low-performing Third World countries and the First World
I fail to see how this adds up to any conclusion. Are you now declaring U.S. blacks to be more stupid too?

in regards to things such as the PISA exam.
Again, this is not an IQ test and it's not made for what you claim it's made. It's made for 15 year olds to test their knowledge and logic, the results of which are then taken to rate education systems. It's not made to rate the intelligence level of certain nations, you not only misrepresent what the test is for but also link it to things which have nothing to do with it such as environmental factors.

Rather than engaging in moralistic criticism against me for this belief of mine,
Challenging you because you put forward disturbing scientific racism is not ''moralistic''. You put up your opinion on a forum and people challenged it, are you so convinced in your own prejudices and half-baked speculations that you can't accept differing opinions in regards to this?

it would be interesting to show some evidence of Third World countries that performed extremely poorly in the past and yet nevertheless perform at First World levels today. Some Third World countries--such as Vietnam and China--performed very well on PISA even when they were poor, so poverty alone would not necessarily be a sufficient explanation of the underperformance of various other Third World countries on the PISA exam.
The ''Third World'' countries are a fairly recent concept, as is IQ. Give me the results of IQ tests for the Spanish Empire in 1588 or for England in the same year and then try to speculate what's better. Pushing aside the historical, cultural, political etc. contexts for certain nations and explaining certain performances of certain countries as ''these people are stupid, these are not.'' is bizarre.

If you're curious, I previously didn't have much interest in this topic before getting exposed to it in forums such as this one several years ago:


I eventually stumbled upon the work and/or blogs of people such as Garett Jones (author of Hive Mind), Steven Hsu, Nathan Cofnas, Davide Piffer, Anatoly Karlin, HBD Chick, JayMan, Greg Cochran (his blog is called West Hunter), James Thompson, Richard Haier, Steve Sailer, and the like--where I got to learn much more about things such as intelligence research, the importance of average national IQ for economic prosperity, and all of that. Research in regards to these topics still appears to be ongoing, of course. So, yeah, my own position is to let the research play out and to be very open to the possibility of significant evolutionary differences between different human groups.
So you read a speculative forum, took it at face value about something such as this and you believe it as factual? If so, be consistent and take the words from the people in this discussion at face value as well.

Steve Sailer, someone who has a reputation for scientific racism. Anatoly Karlin, who writes for the aforementioned Unz Review. Davide Piffer, a pseudo-scientist with similar strange views who wrote for the ever-credible OpenPsych.... These people are about as credible on these matters as David Irving is credible on the Holocaust.

Before you're going to criticize me and accuse me of pseudo-science or whatever, please keep in mind that apparently intelligence researchers ranked Steve Sailer's and Anatoly Karlin's blogs as presenting the most reliable information in regards to the results of intelligence research in 2013:

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/2013-survey-of-expert-opinion-on-intelligence.pdf
Appeal to authority. Are the people who made this survey objective? Considering that it comes from Kirkegaard's site I highly doubt it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulius

mark87

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,117
Santiago de Chile
The degeneracy of this thread is the reason why I left this site for a long while. It's not a question of "evolution" but of social development. The US brutalised the Philippines and left it poor and uneducated. Simple as that. It's not because of some idiocy about divergent evolution or distinction in human groups which only racists (here liberals included, who nevertheless prefer to appear enlightened by talking of "culture" instead of biology) are obsessed with. Had the US not colonised the Philippines, it probably wouldn't be Japan but neither would it be what it is today. It could be comparable to Argentina or Chile, for example.
'Left it poor and uneducated'? Please do tell how the Filipinos were all educated and civilized in 1898, please show us their 99 percent literacy rate, please show us all their industry, and please show us their glorious political/economic/financial/social system that allowed all of them to live in riches not rags, please do show us...