As for psychometrics, that field has enough detractors on a good day, probably better not to shout it from the rooftops… I wouldn’t be boasting about it anyway.
Oh? If there are so many detractors than perhaps it should be shouted from the rooftops. Isn’t the whole purpose of the empirical research tradition to use data to falsify premises? If you have such data to falsify Stephen Pinker’s claim that IQ is the most empirically supported construct within all of the social sciences, I’d love to read it.
And in respect of the last comment posted, in Thailand, where matters affecting face are concerned (and IQ is most definitely one of those), you can’t – or shouldn’t – state anything with confidence
That is a good point, actually. Which is why I provided links to the actual studies so that one may examine them for his or herself to identify any methodological flaws. Barring that, a charge of malfeasance on the part of the researchers is a serious one; unless you have actual evidence of the researchers of the study manipulating data, you have no leg to stand on when dismissing their findings, particularly, under cover of anonymity. Indeed, only “amateurs” would claim that findings which do not support their preconceived notions were a result of de facto cultural bias on the part of the researchers or participants.
Mark – because SO MANY previous pre-coup signs are there. Eg. “banquet Cabinet” corruption and nepotism, long-standing inter- military tensions and rivalries (the Chulachomklao coup-conveyor belt), the obviously still simmering Royal succession problems, widespread economic / ethno-socio-economic malaise, massive media discontent, almost universal student discontent ( including among Thai students here, in Australua, who complain : “Prayut is too strict”.).The list goes on, and on. And now even Yellow Shirt discontent – eg Somkid’s episode. It’s time
for the re-set
button.
The mendaciousness expressed in your reply is breathtaking in its scope. At no point to you actually point to any sort of empirical data to support your claims or deflate mine. It was just four paragraphs of whiny deflection and unwarranted assumptions. Baby Boomer? Nice try, I was born in 1977. Selective statistics? I provided every major survey of intelligence conducted in Thailand for the past decade, with links to the original study, and I defy you to find another.
Additionally, I don’t have to “show” where you claimed a correlation between low IQ and gossip, it’s right their in your own words up-thread, and I quote, “Many people do not recognise that in a primitive country such as Thailand, where the mean intelligence is very low and communications are hampered by incompetence and a lack of social responsibility, then gossip is one of the major means of communications, and it is remarkably effective, according to my own observation anyway”. To anyone who is a native speaker of English implicature contained in that statement is clear, and only someone arguing in bad faith, like you, would deny it.
Finally, being the humorless misanthrope you are, you respond to a quip with such strident wailing that it is impossible to parody. Thus, I’ll just hang you on your own words again:
And please don’t call me son, that just takes away whatever credibility was left in the rant, little though it already was and identifies you as just another sullen baby-boomer who never quite managed to find the right sqyare [sic] hole. If you don’t agree, then it’s better to just say Í don’t agree’, rather than voluntarily identify yourself with sexpats, barstool cowboys and other human flotsam and detritus in the mistaken belief that someone might be impressed.
Let me give you a lesson in implicature, son. You are implying that only you can take a particular rhetorical tone and that anyone who gives you a taste of your own medicine is “human flotsam and detritus” who hasn’t accomplished anything in their life.
I await your dropping the mask of anonymity, “Morgan,” so that we can all marvel at the sublime breadth and depth of your intellectual contributions. I, mean, surely, you can’t be just some crank on the Internet, can you, Morgan?
At this point, I would like to speak to Nich and company. New Mandala makes a big deal out of the fact that it is an “academic blog” and in a private correspondence, Nich once wrote to me that he envisions that the comment section is akin to the question-and-answer section at an academic seminar. As such, I would imagine that comments containing reference to empirical data and attempt at rational argumentation are valued over comments expressing unsupported claims and outright bigotry. While individual scholarly disciplines vary in the leeway given to express learned wit in one’s authorial voice, a fact in which I take full advantage, I ask that a bon mot or two, in the service of a bit of fun in the midst of an honest attempt to address an extremely flawed argument not be confused with the unscholarly tone of “Morgan,” which contributes nothing useful to the greater conversation on the topic. In the future, I ask that the editors pay more attention to Nich’s vision and judge a potential comment as the moderator of a Q&A session at an academic conference would. Would a moderator allow a “Morgan” to dominate the allotted time with his or her crackpot theorizing and personal sniping, much less to do so under cover of a nom de plume? I seriously doubt it. I ask that such courtesies be taken with my good-faith contributions, and that you will not allow “Morgan” to continue his or her spit-flecked rant.
Frankly this was far from your best work, Christine, but nevertheless it was interesting and thought provoking, and I suggest you just ignore the ranting of people like Michael Wilson.
Constructive criticism and debate are really useful, but Michael prefers to make moral judgments about those whose views he disagrees with, and never misses an opportunity to telegraph his “contempt” for anyone with a different opinion to his own. He also loves conspiracy theories, as we can see in this discussion, where he once again shares his tinfoil hat theories that people with views that don’t chime with his are not stating their sincere opinions, but rather have been bribed or brainwashed by some shadowy evil coalition of baddies.
The irony is, of course, that this kind of angry white male conspiratorial aggressive mansplaining is rife nowadays, most notably in the circle of people around Donald Trump, whom Michael claims to hate despite the obvious similarities in their behaviour and inability to debate in an open minded and respectful way.
As somebody who has wasted many hours I can never get back arguing with angry troubled men online, I would advise you to learn the same lesson I have learned: if somebody is not capable of debating you without rancour and abuse, just ignore them. They are not worth it.
Depends how you look at it and how you categorise it. I see no merit in drawing distinctions between gossip in various cultures, to me it’s all much the same and any categorisation is superficial not to say bogus.
People gossip, it’s an important part of [the evolution of] our psychology. Women do it more than men and there are perfectly good and practical reasons why that is so as well.
I agree that gossip is an important means of communications, especially where communications are repressed or the means of communications is incompetent and privacy undermined, but I don’t see any evidence for a useful proposition that gossip is culturally specific, not is it intuitively satisfying – probably in part down to my own academic profile.
Giles may or not be “embittered” by the political winds that have blown him out of Thailand, but he has maintained consistently his contempt for the gossip-mongers who time and again work to create the impression that elite ritual and the soap-operatic “succession struggle” are or have been central to the “evolving patterns of power” in Thailand’s ongoing political crisis. In that, I am in 100% agreement with him.
I suspect Giles’ contempt for the gossipping classes (elsewhere called the chattering classes for good reason) stems from his contempt, not so much for the people doing the gossiping (which I’m not convinced he really feels), but for the people who ONLY do the gossipping. And nothing else.
In that sense I agree with him completely. It seems to me that there are far too many people in Thailand who have become accustomed to gathering together for a little harmless (and ineffectual) middle-class activism with their coffee. In this sense, most Thais should be absolutely ashamed that much of the real political activism is being done by students. I’ve talked with a number of red-shirt ‘pooyay’ in the past few years and have invariably been dismayed at their ability to whine and grumble, but contrastingly complete inability to get off their bottoms and do something other than just whingeing.
In my view, history shows very clearly that for any defining change in the political systems, which usually involves getting the feudal barons ejected, a blood sacrifice is required. In this respect my wishful thinking that the Thai people would actually throw off a yoke which has brought repression but also a certain amount of comfort to a good few, has proved so far to be just that – wishful thinking.
It may be a better approach, certainly for me a more productive one, to just get on with making my own life fulfilling and let the Thai people get on with their own problem without choosing to endure more of the incessant whining. To qote the ole maxim… either poop or get off the pot.
You are certainly right that OSS was of the US elite and so was the CIA in early days. The Thai connection probably needs more work. The CIA files for the OSS are open but still redacted, including for the royal family.
Okay, I see, you did not mean 1946-47, when the inquest was on and when the Democrats or Progressives were shouting about Pridi, but later, when the fake trials were on.
Keep it civil chaps and chapesses, scholars don’t need (or shouldn’t need) to have weeing contests, and dodgy arguments don’t help anything or anyone. As for psychometrics, that field has enough detractors on a good day, probably better not to shout it from the rooftops… I wouldn’t be boasting about it anyway.
Nobody expects everyone to agree, but having formal qualifications ought to mean they everyone is at least civil, even if robust – so long as you aren’t Richard Dawkins that is. And in respect of the last comment posted, in Thailand, where matters affecting face are concerned (and IQ is most definitely one of those), you can’t – or shouldn’t – state anything with confidence, or that anything else is false, utterly or otherwise, this isn’t amateur hour.
Not sure where you detect “vitriol” in that response but I’m sure that one woman’s vitriol is another’s “angry trolling”, so there is that.
Giles may or not be “embittered” by the political winds that have blown him out of Thailand, but he has maintained consistently his contempt for the gossip-mongers who time and again work to create the impression that elite ritual and the soap-operatic “succession struggle” are or have been central to the “evolving patterns of power” in Thailand’s ongoing political crisis.
In that, I am in 100% agreement with him.
As for my aiming to “prevent new ideas and new contributors from posting” here, you have got to be kidding.
The stale old emphasis on the monarchy would simply bore me to tears if it weren’t so indicative of a general tendency to distort the nature of Thai politics and utterly erase the Thai people from the narrative, both in pseudo-academic and mainstream “journalism”.
I have been looking around for a paper I wrote back in the day on “gendering evil” in Buffy the Vampire Slayer but am pretty sure it has gone the way of the notes I made when I was noodling toward proposing a Lacanian reading of “pronoun slippage and gender” in the poems of Emily Bronte to my thesis supervisor.
One was pure eighties grad stuff and the other was early millennial gonzo feminism.
Thai politics and society are neither Emily Bronte nor Buffy, and neither are they served by the playful application of intellectual constructs that are perfectly respectable in the realms of imagination that are the proper objects of such speculative play.
I mean, can you say “Oriental Despot” one more time with feeling?
Well, there you go. The mean IQ in Thailand appears according to the statistics which you use, not to be 89 at all but a towering 93. Excellent. According to the statistics you use. It can quite easily be demonstrated using some of the same selective statistics you use, the mean IQ in Thailand is actually less that 88. As with all things statistical, it requires a certain honesty not to selectively use or manipulate numbers.
You then go on to say that I claim a correlation between IQ and the propensity to gossip, but I doubt you can show where I said that. Please don’t make things up, it makes you look even more dishonest.
“Just as you look down upon the denizens of sexpat forums, I sneer at laymen cranks who stridently inflict their crackpot theories in the comment sections of academic blogs.
In the vernacular of the last decade, you’ve just been ethered, son.”
Oh please. Try to retain some semblance of dignity at least. If you’re going to get all rappy on us, than at least try to accurately reflect what I actually wrote in amongst your verbal gesticulations. Duh. And please don’t call me son, that just takes away whatever credibility was left in the rant, little though it already was and identifies you as just another sullen baby-boomer who never quite managed to find the right sqyare hole. If you don’t agree, then it’s better to just say Í don’t agree’, rather than voluntarily identify yourself with sexpats, barstool cowboys and other human flotsam and detritus in the mistaken belief that someone might be impressed.
Ko Tee is a leader in the Redshirt movement’s United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship. He was sought by police on the order of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for allegedly defaming the monarchy in a 2014 interview he gave to Vice News during the height of protests against her government. He hasn’t been seen since the dissolution of the Pheu Thai Party following the coup that came soon after.
Explosives, firearms seized at red-shirt house
18 Mar 2017
A large number of explosives, weapons, rounds of ammunition and other items were seized during a raid on the house of red-shirt member Wutthipong “Ko Tee’’ Kochathammakun in Lam Luk Ka district on Saturday morning.
(*The two Sukhatunga et al. studies used different instruments, both being variants of Raven’s Progressive Matrices.) Now, a crude meta-analysis with the assumption that the findings of the 6 studies are equally robust, etc. etc. would yield a mean IQ of 93.3 over a 13 year period.
Just as you look down upon the denizens of sexpat forums, I sneer at laymen cranks who stridently inflict their crackpot theories in the comment sections of academic blogs.
References:
Aekplakorn, W. (2009). Report on the Fourth National Health Examination Survey: 2008-2009. Bangkok, Thailand: National Health Security Office.
Ruangdaraganon, N. (2004). Growth development and intelligence of Thai children. Songkla, Thailand: Hat Yai Press.
Sukhatunga, K., Kowasint, C., Phatthrayuttawat S., Chantra, J., Chaiyasit, W., Bunnagulrote, K., & Imaroonrak, S. (2006). Norms of the Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM) in Thai students age 6-11 years old. Journal of Thai Clinical Psychology, 37, 9-22.
Thai Department of Mental Health (2011). Survey of the intellectual level of students in Thailand: 2010. Bangkok, Thailand: Thai Department of Mental Health, Thai Ministry of Public Health.
Thai Institute of Public Health (1998). The Second National Health Examination Survey: 1996-1997. Nonthaburi, Thailand: Thai Institute of Public Health.
Sukhatunga, K., Kowasint, C., Phatthrayuttawat S., Chantra, J., Chaiyasit, W., Bunnagulrote, K., & Imaroonrak, S. (2006). Norms of the Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) in Thai students age 12-18 years old. Journal of Thai Clinical Psychology, 37, 1-10.
This is interesting. In some towns in America, Thai restaurant owners responded to X’s reputation and activities in the last century by featuring only pictures of the king, or of the king and queen. Some took pictures of royals down entirely. Many Thais will not speak publicly of politics out of fear for family still in country. Certainly they will not speak publicly criticizing royalty — especially “beloved” royalty. That culture of fear is deeply ingrained. Billions of dollars goes a long way. In a culture of intimidation, what are ya gonna do? …. speak in whispers
There’s a fair amount of literature on the OSS during and immediately after the Pacific War, and CIA involvement with police in the 1950s. The latter tends to repeat itself, however. OSS was totally a creature of the American and Thai elite. There are quite fascinating questions about royals’ activities during the war, because many emerged quite wealthy, clustered around major commercial banks, after the war.
Michael,
Why the vitriol? Giles himself came from an elite family, I believe, and is embittered, as many are, at what’s going on in the country. I’m sure NM would welcome a piece from you, under your real name, if this isn’t it, with an exact focus of what you think is worthy of comment in these strange times. Otherwise, the vitriol would just seem to be aimed at preventing new ideas and new contributors from posting on this site as a means of enforcing the status quo. If you are a fan of Giles, by all means post an update on the Thai labor movement, its sources of energy and funding. Feel free to explain exactly what are the realities of 2017. There is excellent work out there on motorcycle taxi drivers, etc. and their role in 21st century politics as well as regional political dynamics in and after the Thaksin era. There is little or no work on gender and gender dynamics as it pertains to palace and junta politics. There is, however, a hecka lot of advertising…
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
Christine – have you got ANY evidence of “Swiss medical clinics” ?
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
Oh? If there are so many detractors than perhaps it should be shouted from the rooftops. Isn’t the whole purpose of the empirical research tradition to use data to falsify premises? If you have such data to falsify Stephen Pinker’s claim that IQ is the most empirically supported construct within all of the social sciences, I’d love to read it.
That is a good point, actually. Which is why I provided links to the actual studies so that one may examine them for his or herself to identify any methodological flaws. Barring that, a charge of malfeasance on the part of the researchers is a serious one; unless you have actual evidence of the researchers of the study manipulating data, you have no leg to stand on when dismissing their findings, particularly, under cover of anonymity. Indeed, only “amateurs” would claim that findings which do not support their preconceived notions were a result of de facto cultural bias on the part of the researchers or participants.
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
Mark – because SO MANY previous pre-coup signs are there. Eg. “banquet Cabinet” corruption and nepotism, long-standing inter- military tensions and rivalries (the Chulachomklao coup-conveyor belt), the obviously still simmering Royal succession problems, widespread economic / ethno-socio-economic malaise, massive media discontent, almost universal student discontent ( including among Thai students here, in Australua, who complain : “Prayut is too strict”.).The list goes on, and on. And now even Yellow Shirt discontent – eg Somkid’s episode. It’s time
for the re-set
button.
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
The mendaciousness expressed in your reply is breathtaking in its scope. At no point to you actually point to any sort of empirical data to support your claims or deflate mine. It was just four paragraphs of whiny deflection and unwarranted assumptions. Baby Boomer? Nice try, I was born in 1977. Selective statistics? I provided every major survey of intelligence conducted in Thailand for the past decade, with links to the original study, and I defy you to find another.
Additionally, I don’t have to “show” where you claimed a correlation between low IQ and gossip, it’s right their in your own words up-thread, and I quote, “Many people do not recognise that in a primitive country such as Thailand, where the mean intelligence is very low and communications are hampered by incompetence and a lack of social responsibility, then gossip is one of the major means of communications, and it is remarkably effective, according to my own observation anyway”. To anyone who is a native speaker of English implicature contained in that statement is clear, and only someone arguing in bad faith, like you, would deny it.
Finally, being the humorless misanthrope you are, you respond to a quip with such strident wailing that it is impossible to parody. Thus, I’ll just hang you on your own words again:
Let me give you a lesson in implicature, son. You are implying that only you can take a particular rhetorical tone and that anyone who gives you a taste of your own medicine is “human flotsam and detritus” who hasn’t accomplished anything in their life.
And since pedigree is so important to you, Morgan, allow me to re-introduce myself: Dr. Lleij Samuel Schwartz, Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics and TESOL at Southern New Hampshire University. Department chair before the age of 40 and co-director of an institute that employs over 30 faculty members, including a laboratory devoted to the study of adult second language acquisition. Among other projects, I am currently working with my friend and colleague, Dr. Saeed Aden of Harvard University on the final draft of an article comparing the challenges facing educational administrators in the south of Thailand with those in post-conflict Somalia, of which we were debating providing a summary for this very site.
I await your dropping the mask of anonymity, “Morgan,” so that we can all marvel at the sublime breadth and depth of your intellectual contributions. I, mean, surely, you can’t be just some crank on the Internet, can you, Morgan?
At this point, I would like to speak to Nich and company. New Mandala makes a big deal out of the fact that it is an “academic blog” and in a private correspondence, Nich once wrote to me that he envisions that the comment section is akin to the question-and-answer section at an academic seminar. As such, I would imagine that comments containing reference to empirical data and attempt at rational argumentation are valued over comments expressing unsupported claims and outright bigotry. While individual scholarly disciplines vary in the leeway given to express learned wit in one’s authorial voice, a fact in which I take full advantage, I ask that a bon mot or two, in the service of a bit of fun in the midst of an honest attempt to address an extremely flawed argument not be confused with the unscholarly tone of “Morgan,” which contributes nothing useful to the greater conversation on the topic. In the future, I ask that the editors pay more attention to Nich’s vision and judge a potential comment as the moderator of a Q&A session at an academic conference would. Would a moderator allow a “Morgan” to dominate the allotted time with his or her crackpot theorizing and personal sniping, much less to do so under cover of a nom de plume? I seriously doubt it. I ask that such courtesies be taken with my good-faith contributions, and that you will not allow “Morgan” to continue his or her spit-flecked rant.
Thank you.
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
Ralph – could you provide a link, or if not, at least a citation, for the CIA files being “open” ?
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
Frankly this was far from your best work, Christine, but nevertheless it was interesting and thought provoking, and I suggest you just ignore the ranting of people like Michael Wilson.
Constructive criticism and debate are really useful, but Michael prefers to make moral judgments about those whose views he disagrees with, and never misses an opportunity to telegraph his “contempt” for anyone with a different opinion to his own. He also loves conspiracy theories, as we can see in this discussion, where he once again shares his tinfoil hat theories that people with views that don’t chime with his are not stating their sincere opinions, but rather have been bribed or brainwashed by some shadowy evil coalition of baddies.
The irony is, of course, that this kind of angry white male conspiratorial aggressive mansplaining is rife nowadays, most notably in the circle of people around Donald Trump, whom Michael claims to hate despite the obvious similarities in their behaviour and inability to debate in an open minded and respectful way.
As somebody who has wasted many hours I can never get back arguing with angry troubled men online, I would advise you to learn the same lesson I have learned: if somebody is not capable of debating you without rancour and abuse, just ignore them. They are not worth it.
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
Depends how you look at it and how you categorise it. I see no merit in drawing distinctions between gossip in various cultures, to me it’s all much the same and any categorisation is superficial not to say bogus.
People gossip, it’s an important part of [the evolution of] our psychology. Women do it more than men and there are perfectly good and practical reasons why that is so as well.
I agree that gossip is an important means of communications, especially where communications are repressed or the means of communications is incompetent and privacy undermined, but I don’t see any evidence for a useful proposition that gossip is culturally specific, not is it intuitively satisfying – probably in part down to my own academic profile.
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
Giles may or not be “embittered” by the political winds that have blown him out of Thailand, but he has maintained consistently his contempt for the gossip-mongers who time and again work to create the impression that elite ritual and the soap-operatic “succession struggle” are or have been central to the “evolving patterns of power” in Thailand’s ongoing political crisis. In that, I am in 100% agreement with him.
I suspect Giles’ contempt for the gossipping classes (elsewhere called the chattering classes for good reason) stems from his contempt, not so much for the people doing the gossiping (which I’m not convinced he really feels), but for the people who ONLY do the gossipping. And nothing else.
In that sense I agree with him completely. It seems to me that there are far too many people in Thailand who have become accustomed to gathering together for a little harmless (and ineffectual) middle-class activism with their coffee. In this sense, most Thais should be absolutely ashamed that much of the real political activism is being done by students. I’ve talked with a number of red-shirt ‘pooyay’ in the past few years and have invariably been dismayed at their ability to whine and grumble, but contrastingly complete inability to get off their bottoms and do something other than just whingeing.
In my view, history shows very clearly that for any defining change in the political systems, which usually involves getting the feudal barons ejected, a blood sacrifice is required. In this respect my wishful thinking that the Thai people would actually throw off a yoke which has brought repression but also a certain amount of comfort to a good few, has proved so far to be just that – wishful thinking.
It may be a better approach, certainly for me a more productive one, to just get on with making my own life fulfilling and let the Thai people get on with their own problem without choosing to endure more of the incessant whining. To qote the ole maxim… either poop or get off the pot.
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
You are certainly right that OSS was of the US elite and so was the CIA in early days. The Thai connection probably needs more work. The CIA files for the OSS are open but still redacted, including for the royal family.
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
Okay, I see, you did not mean 1946-47, when the inquest was on and when the Democrats or Progressives were shouting about Pridi, but later, when the fake trials were on.
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
In 1946 and 1947? That’s the question. There’s plenty of information for later, but the question is about specific dates.
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
Keep it civil chaps and chapesses, scholars don’t need (or shouldn’t need) to have weeing contests, and dodgy arguments don’t help anything or anyone. As for psychometrics, that field has enough detractors on a good day, probably better not to shout it from the rooftops… I wouldn’t be boasting about it anyway.
Nobody expects everyone to agree, but having formal qualifications ought to mean they everyone is at least civil, even if robust – so long as you aren’t Richard Dawkins that is. And in respect of the last comment posted, in Thailand, where matters affecting face are concerned (and IQ is most definitely one of those), you can’t – or shouldn’t – state anything with confidence, or that anything else is false, utterly or otherwise, this isn’t amateur hour.
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
Not sure where you detect “vitriol” in that response but I’m sure that one woman’s vitriol is another’s “angry trolling”, so there is that.
Giles may or not be “embittered” by the political winds that have blown him out of Thailand, but he has maintained consistently his contempt for the gossip-mongers who time and again work to create the impression that elite ritual and the soap-operatic “succession struggle” are or have been central to the “evolving patterns of power” in Thailand’s ongoing political crisis.
In that, I am in 100% agreement with him.
As for my aiming to “prevent new ideas and new contributors from posting” here, you have got to be kidding.
The stale old emphasis on the monarchy would simply bore me to tears if it weren’t so indicative of a general tendency to distort the nature of Thai politics and utterly erase the Thai people from the narrative, both in pseudo-academic and mainstream “journalism”.
I have been looking around for a paper I wrote back in the day on “gendering evil” in Buffy the Vampire Slayer but am pretty sure it has gone the way of the notes I made when I was noodling toward proposing a Lacanian reading of “pronoun slippage and gender” in the poems of Emily Bronte to my thesis supervisor.
One was pure eighties grad stuff and the other was early millennial gonzo feminism.
Thai politics and society are neither Emily Bronte nor Buffy, and neither are they served by the playful application of intellectual constructs that are perfectly respectable in the realms of imagination that are the proper objects of such speculative play.
I mean, can you say “Oriental Despot” one more time with feeling?
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
Well, there you go. The mean IQ in Thailand appears according to the statistics which you use, not to be 89 at all but a towering 93. Excellent. According to the statistics you use. It can quite easily be demonstrated using some of the same selective statistics you use, the mean IQ in Thailand is actually less that 88. As with all things statistical, it requires a certain honesty not to selectively use or manipulate numbers.
You then go on to say that I claim a correlation between IQ and the propensity to gossip, but I doubt you can show where I said that. Please don’t make things up, it makes you look even more dishonest.
“Just as you look down upon the denizens of sexpat forums, I sneer at laymen cranks who stridently inflict their crackpot theories in the comment sections of academic blogs.
In the vernacular of the last decade, you’ve just been ethered, son.”
Oh please. Try to retain some semblance of dignity at least. If you’re going to get all rappy on us, than at least try to accurately reflect what I actually wrote in amongst your verbal gesticulations. Duh. And please don’t call me son, that just takes away whatever credibility was left in the rant, little though it already was and identifies you as just another sullen baby-boomer who never quite managed to find the right sqyare hole. If you don’t agree, then it’s better to just say Í don’t agree’, rather than voluntarily identify yourself with sexpats, barstool cowboys and other human flotsam and detritus in the mistaken belief that someone might be impressed.
Bangkok’s last Red Shirt fortress
perhaps not …
Ko Tee is a leader in the Redshirt movement’s United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship. He was sought by police on the order of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for allegedly defaming the monarchy in a 2014 interview he gave to Vice News during the height of protests against her government. He hasn’t been seen since the dissolution of the Pheu Thai Party following the coup that came soon after.
http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/crimecourtscalamity/crime-crime/2017/03/18/firearms-explosives-seized-redshirt-djs-house/
Bangkok’s last Red Shirt fortress
Explosives, firearms seized at red-shirt house
18 Mar 2017
A large number of explosives, weapons, rounds of ammunition and other items were seized during a raid on the house of red-shirt member Wutthipong “Ko Tee’’ Kochathammakun in Lam Luk Ka district on Saturday morning.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1217029/explosives-firearms-seized-at-red-shirt-house
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
As someone who works in the field of the psychometrics of language acquisition, I can confidently say that claim utterly false.
Taking a look at several large surveys of national IQ one can see the following results for the mean:
Thai Institute of Public Health (1998): 89.9
Ruangdaraganon (2004): 85.3
Sukhatunga et al. (2006a): 95.6*
Sukhatunga et al. (2006b): 104.6*
Aekplakorn (2009):87.9
Thai Department of Mental Health (2011): 96.5
(*The two Sukhatunga et al. studies used different instruments, both being variants of Raven’s Progressive Matrices.) Now, a crude meta-analysis with the assumption that the findings of the 6 studies are equally robust, etc. etc. would yield a mean IQ of 93.3 over a 13 year period.
Furthermore, regardless of what the mean IQ of the Thai population is, your premise that there is some correlation between IQ and the propensity to gossip is absurd. In fact, scholars like Robin Dunbar have “theorized that gossip played a fundamental role in the evolution of human intelligence and social life” (Rosnow & Foster, 2005).
Just as you look down upon the denizens of sexpat forums, I sneer at laymen cranks who stridently inflict their crackpot theories in the comment sections of academic blogs.
In the vernacular of the last decade, you’ve just been ethered, son.
References:
Aekplakorn, W. (2009). Report on the Fourth National Health Examination Survey: 2008-2009. Bangkok, Thailand: National Health Security Office.
Rosnow, R. L. & Foster, E.K. (2005). Rumor and Gossip Research [Blog] Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2005/04/gossip.aspx
Ruangdaraganon, N. (2004). Growth development and intelligence of Thai children. Songkla, Thailand: Hat Yai Press.
Sukhatunga, K., Kowasint, C., Phatthrayuttawat S., Chantra, J., Chaiyasit, W., Bunnagulrote, K., & Imaroonrak, S. (2006). Norms of the Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM) in Thai students age 6-11 years old. Journal of Thai Clinical Psychology, 37, 9-22.
Thai Department of Mental Health (2011). Survey of the intellectual level of students in Thailand: 2010. Bangkok, Thailand: Thai Department of Mental Health, Thai Ministry of Public Health.
Thai Institute of Public Health (1998). The Second National Health Examination Survey: 1996-1997. Nonthaburi, Thailand: Thai Institute of Public Health.
Sukhatunga, K., Kowasint, C., Phatthrayuttawat S., Chantra, J., Chaiyasit, W., Bunnagulrote, K., & Imaroonrak, S. (2006). Norms of the Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) in Thai students age 12-18 years old. Journal of Thai Clinical Psychology, 37, 1-10.
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
This is interesting. In some towns in America, Thai restaurant owners responded to X’s reputation and activities in the last century by featuring only pictures of the king, or of the king and queen. Some took pictures of royals down entirely. Many Thais will not speak publicly of politics out of fear for family still in country. Certainly they will not speak publicly criticizing royalty — especially “beloved” royalty. That culture of fear is deeply ingrained. Billions of dollars goes a long way. In a culture of intimidation, what are ya gonna do? …. speak in whispers
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
There’s a fair amount of literature on the OSS during and immediately after the Pacific War, and CIA involvement with police in the 1950s. The latter tends to repeat itself, however. OSS was totally a creature of the American and Thai elite. There are quite fascinating questions about royals’ activities during the war, because many emerged quite wealthy, clustered around major commercial banks, after the war.
Risk, gossip and retribution in Thailand
Michael,
Why the vitriol? Giles himself came from an elite family, I believe, and is embittered, as many are, at what’s going on in the country. I’m sure NM would welcome a piece from you, under your real name, if this isn’t it, with an exact focus of what you think is worthy of comment in these strange times. Otherwise, the vitriol would just seem to be aimed at preventing new ideas and new contributors from posting on this site as a means of enforcing the status quo. If you are a fan of Giles, by all means post an update on the Thai labor movement, its sources of energy and funding. Feel free to explain exactly what are the realities of 2017. There is excellent work out there on motorcycle taxi drivers, etc. and their role in 21st century politics as well as regional political dynamics in and after the Thaksin era. There is little or no work on gender and gender dynamics as it pertains to palace and junta politics. There is, however, a hecka lot of advertising…