Expand on or question this hypothesis on why the third world SUCKS

[prism]

The three main factors causing third world societies to be so dysfunctional and retrograde, are the following traits in the people:

• Low intelligence, a source of failure at reaching scientific achievements before other, high intelligence societies, always looking towards high intelligence societies for the latest achievements and always trailing behind;
• Low empathy, a source of uncooperation, heightened competitiveness, mistrust, dishonesty, leading to criminality, and corruption. Nothing works as it should but everything can be gamed by the few and powerful;
• Low conscientiousness and low dopamine, sources of underachievement, messiness, dirtiness and laziness and other typically sub-human behavior, which hold back progress.

Other factors:
CULTURE: Tribal superstitions and dysfunctional religions and cultures. Islam included.
HYGIENE: Poor hygiene and sanitation. Dirty water and lack of food. Malnutrition and undernutrition.
DIVERSITY: Ethnic and racial diversity are a major source of low trust and conflict.

I'd like to know what you all think about this, whether you have better explanations or want to refine this further.

 

[AmericanViking]

I think illiteracy can be cultural/religious and is a big factor

Intelligence is affected by culture as well. Some 60% of Muslims are inbred.

 

[Rva]

the main cause is not speaking the English language.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

to be so dysfunctional and retrograde,

I would argue that both of these have nothing to do with 3rd worldness directly. We here in USA are plenty dysfunctional, in many ways.

Retrograde? Not sure what you mean by this, but there are many things about how thing used to be that are in fact better than how they are now.

Low intelligence, a source of failure at reaching scientific achievements before other, high intelligence societies, always looking towards high intelligence societies for the latest achievements and always trailing behind;

I would agree with this. Further I will define "high intelligent societies" to be ethnically Caucasian or Asian/Mongol, and no other. In other words, not African or Latin, in which still hold true today, by in large.

Low empathy, a source of uncooperation, heightened competitiveness, mistrust, dishonesty, leading to criminality, and corruption. Nothing works as it should but everything can be gamed by the few and powerful;

I do not think this has anything to do with empathy, as it does with greed.

Low conscientiousness and low dopamine, sources of underachievement, messiness, dirtiness and laziness and other typically sub-human behavior, which hold back progress.

Sure, but laziness is not what I would use. That world we are speaking of plays by a different set of rules

CULTURE: Tribal superstitions and dysfunctional religions and cultures. Islam included.

The chief difference between Western culture and "3rd world" as you put it, is honor. Western civilization is based on money, while Islam for example is based on honor.

HYGIENE: Poor hygiene and sanitation. Dirty water and lack of food. Malnutrition and undernutrition.

Hmmmm, no. Plenty of folks live very long lives, and are not plagued with cancer and obesity, like here in the USA, so no not really

DIVERSITY: Ethnic and racial diversity are a major source of low trust and conflict.

Most of the countries that would fit into the "3rd World" definition, are not in the least ethnically diverse, nor are they sympathetic to diversity. In fact, there are many examples of ethnic cleansing just for that reason, being against diversity, like in Rwanda, or even Bosnia.



Overall, I say that too much of anything is not good for a society. History has shown that of the different races on this planet, Asian/Mongol and Caucasian, on the regular, hold their shit down pretty good, and "advance" accordingly. I suppose the real question here is what do we see as "advance". For some it is more money, or cars, or houses, for others it is to be a good person, and make the "most" of their time. That is the question. IMO, that you are really asking here. Is one person, who lives in a hut poor? Is the man who lives in Beverly Hills rich? Not sure on either.


Good first post.