Cambodia Expats Online: Forum | News | Information | Blog

I have recently been reading up on fluid intelligence (IQ) and how it is the best indicator of success. The clinical data is pretty conclusive and the IQ test itself is the best metric phycologists have ever produced for measuring anything with any degree of accuracy.
I found this study and I have requested a copy from the author.

Intelligence and Corruption
(Abstract)
This study finds that countries with high-IQ populations enjoy less corruption. I propose that this is because intelligent people have longer time horizons.

I am particularly interested in his findings and how it could relate to Cambodia. In the meantime I will be doing some background reading on why there is a link between higher IQs and the willingness to forgo a short-term gain for a more substantial gain in the longer term.

Just putting it out here to see what peoples thought are on:

A. thoughts on IQ as a metric to measure success
B. short-term gain Vs Long-term gain in Cambodia in your experience.

When I first got here someone made a comment that Polo Pot had done a right number on this country, the ramifications of which were still blighting the country.

He posited that as the Khmer Rouge sought out and killed all the educated and so called intellectuals, and so many of those types of people also made good their escape (and never returned), what was left was the intellectual dross. They have never recovered.

I was quite shocked by this damning generalisation. However, after 3 years here, I have seen so many stupid things done by so many people, I am beginning to think he might have a point.

In answer to your question:

A. Many people who don't demonstrate any outward signs of high intelligence still thrive. Effort and perseverance are valuable tools of success and many business' don't require anything more than average intelligence. There are also plenty of high IQ people out there who are wrapped up in their Rainman little worlds with their high intellect a social hinderance. They never seem too successful to me.

B. When you have little or nothing you grab what you can and as much as you can. You never know when a big bad thief in a uniform is going to come along and tell you that your golden goose now belongs to someone else.


.

That's one of the things I love about Cambodians. They are not in their heads like Westerners.That's why they can break into a smile so easily.
Basically the entire country has a working class attitude to life, regardless of their job or wealth.

IraHayes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:46 am A. thoughts on IQ as a metric to measure success
B. short-term gain Vs Long-term gain in Cambodia in your experience.

A. I've known so many academics right up to professors who would not last a day in a corporate environment, so you'd need to define 'success' more clearly. If success is to become a professor, then great, if it is monetary or ability to run a super successful company, they'd fall flat despite humungous IQ. Similarly some folks of bang average IQ are "go get 'em" people who even after quitting school at 16 are absolutely driven/motivated and thus succeed despite all odds.

B. It's all about the short-term for the average Cambodian in my view; there's always the next gig. The exceptions tend to be those heavily influenced by the Chinese who definitely have a much longer outlook & are looking to build things that will last, somewhat ironic given the general quality of Chinese products, but the intention is there.

Spigzy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:04 pm

IraHayes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:46 am A. thoughts on IQ as a metric to measure success
B. short-term gain Vs Long-term gain in Cambodia in your experience.

A. I've known so many academics right up to professors who would not last a day in a corporate environment, so you'd need to define 'success' more clearly. If success is to become a professor, then great, if it is monetary or ability to run a super successful company, they'd fall flat despite humungous IQ. Similarly some folks of bang average IQ are "go get 'em" people who even after quitting school at 16 are absolutely driven/motivated and thus succeed despite all odds.

B. It's all about the short-term for the average Cambodian in my view; there's always the next gig. The exceptions tend to be those heavily influenced by the Chinese who definitely have a much longer outlook & are looking to build things that will last, somewhat ironic given the general quality of Chinese products, but the intention is there.

Part A of your answer actually gives the answer. "Success" means just that ... to be successful in your chosen field. That may be academic, as in your ref. to "professors I have known" but also those who run a successful company or are successful in a company and progress in that company/business are extremely likely to be of higher IQ than average.

It was this exact point that led me to begin looking at IQ and corruption

It is under question whether or not IQ tests are a good measure of success. In a Western academic setting the answer is yes. Otherwise, there's a lot of reading to do.

"What may be considered intelligent in one environment, therefore, might not in others. For example, knowledge about medicinal herbs is seen as a form of intelligence in certain communities within Africa, but does not correlate with high performance on traditional Western academic intelligence tests.

According to some researchers, the “cultural specificity” of intelligence makes IQ tests biased towards the environments in which they were developed – namely white, Western society. This makes them potentially problematic in culturally diverse settings. The application of the same test among different communities would fail to recognise the different cultural values that shape what each community values as intelligent behaviour." https://theconversation.com/the-iq-test ... sial-81428


Worth considering.

siliconlife wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:21 pm It is under question whether or not IQ tests are a good measure of success. In a Western academic setting the answer is yes. Otherwise, there's a lot of reading to do.

"What may be considered intelligent in one environment, therefore, might not in others. For example, knowledge about medicinal herbs is seen as a form of intelligence in certain communities within Africa, but does not correlate with high performance on traditional Western academic intelligence tests.

According to some researchers, the “cultural specificity” of intelligence makes IQ tests biased towards the environments in which they were developed – namely white, Western society. This makes them potentially problematic in culturally diverse settings. The application of the same test among different communities would fail to recognise the different cultural values that shape what each community values as intelligent behaviour." https://theconversation.com/the-iq-test ... sial-81428


Worth considering.

And, using your example of a Traditional Healer in a sub-Saharan country, there could be an average IQ of 80 in that country. However, if our Healer is above average at, lets say 95, then she has the been able to become a Healer and learn+apply her knowledge of plants etc because of her increased IQ relative to the general population. ie. She succeeded because her IQ was higher than those around her.
It is when IQ is looked at like this that as a metric for predicting "success in life" it works.

Having discussions about ethnic variations in IQ has become a taboo subject but the differences cannot be easily dismissed.

Doc67 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:28 am When I first got here someone made a comment that Polo Pot had done a right number on this country, the ramifications of which were still blighting the country.

He posited that as the Khmer Rouge sought out and killed all the educated and so called intellectuals, and so many of those types of people also made good their escape (and never returned), what was left was the intellectual dross. They have never recovered.

I was quite shocked by this damning generalisation. However, after 3 years here, I have seen so many stupid things done by so many people, I am beginning to think he might have a point.

In answer to your question:

A. Many people who don't demonstrate any outward signs of high intelligence still thrive. Effort and perseverance are valuable tools of success and many business' don't require anything more than average intelligence. There are also plenty of high IQ people out there who are wrapped up in their Rainman little worlds with their high intellect a social hinderance. They never seem too successful to me.

B. When you have little or nothing you grab what you can and as much as you can. You never know when a big bad thief in a uniform is going to come along and tell you that your golden goose now belongs to someone else.


.

After more than 10 years here permanently and more than 30 years experience with and in Cambodia altogether I can wholeheartedly subscribe to this.

One of the rare really good threads lately.

Doc67 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:28 am When I first got here someone made a comment that Polo Pot had done a right number on this country, the ramifications of which were still blighting the country.

He posited that as the Khmer Rouge sought out and killed all the educated and so called intellectuals, and so many of those types of people also made good their escape (and never returned), what was left was the intellectual dross. They have never recovered.

I was quite shocked by this damning generalisation. However, after 3 years here, I have seen so many stupid things done by so many people, I am beginning to think he might have a point.

In answer to your question:

A. Many people who don't demonstrate any outward signs of high intelligence still thrive. Effort and perseverance are valuable tools of success and many business' don't require anything more than average intelligence. There are also plenty of high IQ people out there who are wrapped up in their Rainman little worlds with their high intellect a social hinderance. They never seem too successful to me.

B. When you have little or nothing you grab what you can and as much as you can. You never know when a big bad thief in a uniform is going to come along and tell you that your golden goose now belongs to someone else.


.

I roll my eyes almost ever time someone trots out that old trope of "they killed all the smart ones".

Usually it's some bar dwelling troglodyte that never went further than Daun Penh who doesn't have full motor controls who will come out with that one; based on a frustrating interaction with a non English speaking menial jobber, and it's total horseshit.

IraHayes wrote: A. thoughts on IQ as a metric to measure success
B. short-term gain Vs Long-term gain in Cambodia in your experience.

IQ could easily be interpreted that way, and I think incorrectly, if a great many other things aren’t considered. It would be like assuming that the most powerful engine in a car would ensure it wins races.
IQ is often equated to knowledge, which is also a false conclusion. There are plenty of well educated people who are not so clever, (education due privilege) and plenty of clever people who never receive an education (no education due class).

IQ can only be a factor, the potential to be successful, the potential to learn.

What drives people, what makes them strive for that success could easily be nothing more than a basic instinct not to be in the same social position that they started in.
Then, what is the measure of success? Who judges that? The brilliant doctor who devotes their career to working in humanitarian efforts like MSF might be judged by their peers (successful in their field) as not being so successful. The assessment of success could be very wrong.
I’ve worked with plenty of people who are very clever, and would be bloody dangerous if left unsupervised.

Doc67 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:28 am In answer to your question:

A. Many people who don't demonstrate any outward signs of high intelligence still thrive. Effort and perseverance are valuable tools of success and many business' don't require anything more than average intelligence. There are also plenty of high IQ people out there who are wrapped up in their Rainman little worlds with their high intellect a social hinderance. They never seem too successful to me.

B. When you have little or nothing you grab what you can and as much as you can. You never know when a big bad thief in a uniform is going to come along and tell you that your golden goose now belongs to someone else.

That same character trait that might urge one person to strive for success through hard work and perseverance might cause another person to make what appear to be very short term choices. Grab the money and run. What might appear short term to you or I, might actually be very long term to them.
When I think of Cambodia, and the other half’s way of thinking about some things appears short sighted. But that’s judged from my experience. Her experiences show that what I think of as worthwhile future planning is wasted effort when it could all be wiped out tomorrow. I save a large proportion of money, but not nearly as much as I’d like, whereas she would spend it. But I use bank accounts, a system which she had no practical access to until a short while ago. 80% of my life, I’ve been saving money, 10% of hers she’s had the opportunity to do so.
The old nature and nurture considerations play a big part, too.