Interesting article about behaviour, economics, psychology, and culture. Amongst other things, it points out how special Westerners are - especially Americans: http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/
Pretty interesting but too goddamn long.
That is a very interesting read.
Thanks for posting it.
I think you get the bulk of the interesting parts in the first 30-50% of the article.
... and I realize I should have titled the thread "Americans are WEIRD"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2013, 01:33:12 PM
Pretty interesting but too goddamn long.
I have often wondered whether the advent of social media has begun to blunt our ability to read, understand and communicate with pieces of information larger than a few sentences.
I read this one yesterday after a friend posted it on Facebook. It's fascinating.
The section about Western social scientists doing more penance than science was particularly apt, I thought.
Kinda blows away the thinking that some single way of doing things can be applied globally over all of humanity. Marketing people know this, and market products differently in different cultures. Regrettably, political activists will probably always cling to the fiction that their idea of how to do things can be successfully applied to every society in the same manner.
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2013, 01:36:03 PM
I think you get the bulk of the interesting parts in the first 30-50% of the article.
... and I realize I should have titled the thread "Americans are WEIRD"
The author asserts that but doesn't really document it very well. Weird in what way?
The other interesting point in the article (the first being that different people have different conceptions of fair division) is that the soft social sciences are stuck between celebrating diversity and refusing to acknowledge the forms it takes.
That is a really, really interesting article Jake.
Not only are we screwing up how we study cultures, we are doing so because the culture we are in per-disposes us to do so!
Just reading through it now. It initially made me think of this great NYT piece on Napoleon Chagnon:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/napoleon-chagnon-americas-most-controversial-anthropologist.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I remember an psychological anthropology paper from a few years ago that basically showed the Western system of syllogistic logic is not universal. Different cultures have experience basic logic that does not accept "if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C" type of reasoning, despite similar regions of the brain being activated.
All of Bob's friends wear hats.
Mike is one of Bob's friends.
Does Mike wear a hat?
That could not be answered in entire regions, the main way of responding was "I can't see Mike, I don't know." Culture is quite a filter for our weak little brains.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2013, 01:45:30 PM
The other interesting point in the article (the first being that different people have different conceptions of fair division) is that the soft social sciences are stuck between celebrating diversity and refusing to acknowledge the forms it takes.
I don't know. I think this is more your way of perceiving it :P My view is that there's been a shift away from 'celebrating diversity' for some time. Marxism, a lot of social psychology and other theories that have held sway at some point are other are similar in that they minimise the importance of culture.
Probably part of it has been a reaction against post-modernism on the one hand and cultural determinism on the other. Think of Pinker's work in linguistics for example, which is very against the idea of linguistic determinism (that the structure and nature of a language shapes the way we perceive the world) precisely because rationally we share a brain and evolutionary heritage that determines that. There's also solid work disproving many of the linguistic determinist arguments. The same sorts of language activates the same bits of the brain, for example cursing kicks off the basal ganglia. Even if a culture uses different language to describe space, direction or time, I believe there's papers that query how differently they experience them.
But I've always thought the swing to psychology and brain science above all other disciplines (whether linguistics, politics, economics or anthropology) has been a bit overdone. It strikes me as a theory that's valid and interesting and having its moment, but that we'll soon move on.
Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with :mellow:
I dated a cheerleader that could do a pretty fair split :cool:
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2013, 02:28:34 PM
I dated a cheerleader that could do a pretty fair split :cool:
What, she dated you and the basketball team at the same time?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2013, 02:17:51 PM
Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with :mellow:
I see that in stock trading too. Lots of traders feel like they did badly on a trade if they get out of a trade with a small profit and then the stock keeps going up. It's like the rest of the gains are losses to them even though it's completely not true. Opportunity costs I suppose.
Quote from: PDH on March 01, 2013, 02:16:01 PM
I remember an psychological anthropology paper from a few years ago that basically showed the Western system of syllogistic logic is not universal. Different cultures have experience basic logic that does not accept "if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C" type of reasoning, despite similar regions of the brain being activated.
All of Bob's friends wear hats.
Mike is one of Bob's friends.
Does Mike wear a hat?
That could not be answered in entire regions, the main way of responding was "I can't see Mike, I don't know." Culture is quite a filter for our weak little brains.
I would be very interested in seeing a paper that showed that logical syllogisms are not universal, as opposed to showing that understanding or value of logical syllogisms is not universal. That may sound ethnocentric especially in light of this article, but differing behaviors across cultures is one thing, differing truth values is another. One of the main premises of logic is that it has a truth value independent of perception or understanding.
A friend of mine who studied Mandarin said it does not have a word for logic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2013, 02:17:51 PM
Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with :mellow:
Not at all baffling, if you think about it.
If the other person is not willing to play "fair" with me, then there is a value to denying him the reward for his not being fair. If that is a small difference, then perhaps it is not worth it - on the other hand, if the difference is large, then my reward (ie the enjoyment i get from denying the asshole his larger share) may very well be greater than the enjoyment I would get from receiving some pittance.
There is an expectation that people should all be "fair" with one another in our society, to some degree or another. And that cannot possibly work if there isn't a willingness to punish those who are not fair.
I am often very amazed at other cultures where casual disregard for the rule of law (for example) is the absolute norm, even in things as trivial as traffic rules. They will say all kinds of things about why they don't follow the basic rules, but at the end of the day, IMO, it simply comes down to a cultural reality where there simply isn't any cultural pressure that says "Yeah, you should let the guy to the right go first because that is the law, and the law is the agreed upon set of rules, and we recognize that if we all follow them in general, the individual loss in any particular interaction will be more than compensated in the overall greater efficiency of the system".
Traffic laws are the easy example of this, but of course it extends much further, and into the basic tolerance for honoring contracts, not screwing your employer even if you get the chance, etc., etc.
Not saying this is better, just that it is rationally consistent.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2013, 03:21:22 PM
A friend of mine who studied Mandarin said it does not have a word for logic.
But that falls under "understanding or value" it does not mean that logic does not work the same way in China.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2013, 02:17:51 PM
Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with :mellow:
The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 01, 2013, 03:30:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2013, 02:17:51 PM
Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with :mellow:
The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.
And that was what made the article interesting - the difference between how an American and the native guys saw it was not a matter of evaluating the relative value of p=unishment vs taking the money, it is that they did not even consider the idea that the second participant was in a position to punish anyone to begin with...
Quote from: Maximus on March 01, 2013, 03:27:44 PM
But that falls under "understanding or value" it does not mean that logic does not work the same way in China.
Not sure I see the distinction about understanding. Hard to apply logic if you don't understand it.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 01, 2013, 03:30:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2013, 02:17:51 PM
Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with :mellow:
The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.
Yeah, I think that is his point. I am also a bit surprised that so many Americans (N. Americans for that matter) would be willing to look a gift horse in the mouth out of spite.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 03:49:14 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 01, 2013, 03:30:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2013, 02:17:51 PM
Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with :mellow:
The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.
Yeah, I think that is his point. I am also a bit surprised that so many Americans (N. Americans for that matter) would be willing to look a gift horse in the mouth out of spite.
I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 01, 2013, 02:40:33 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2013, 02:17:51 PM
Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with :mellow:
I see that in stock trading too. Lots of traders feel like they did badly on a trade if they get out of a trade with a small profit and then the stock keeps going up. It's like the rest of the gains are losses to them even though it's completely not true. Opportunity costs I suppose.
It actually is true. A dollar not gained is a dollar lost. Every good poker player understands this. The only difference between costs and opportunity costs is the accounting treatment.
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 03:51:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 03:49:14 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 01, 2013, 03:30:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2013, 02:17:51 PM
Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with :mellow:
The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.
Yeah, I think that is his point. I am also a bit surprised that so many Americans (N. Americans for that matter) would be willing to look a gift horse in the mouth out of spite.
I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.
I don't even think it is a matter of spite.
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 03:51:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 03:49:14 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 01, 2013, 03:30:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2013, 02:17:51 PM
Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with :mellow:
The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.
Yeah, I think that is his point. I am also a bit surprised that so many Americans (N. Americans for that matter) would be willing to look a gift horse in the mouth out of spite.
I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.
That is the "spite" part I am talking about. It is enlightening to know so many Americans have that tendancy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 03:53:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 03:51:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 03:49:14 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 01, 2013, 03:30:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2013, 02:17:51 PM
Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with :mellow:
The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.
Yeah, I think that is his point. I am also a bit surprised that so many Americans (N. Americans for that matter) would be willing to look a gift horse in the mouth out of spite.
I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.
That is the "spite" part I am talking about. It is enlightening to know so many Americans have that tendancy.
Well now you know. Don't fuck with us. :angry:
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 03:51:07 PM
I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.
My take on it is that when we do that we're not doing it for ourselves(at least not immediately) but for society. We have it ingrained that someone who acts unfairly is harmful to society(and potentially our future selves) and that that behavior should be discouraged.
Quote from: Maximus on March 01, 2013, 03:57:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 03:51:07 PM
I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.
My take on it is that when we do that we're not doing it for ourselves(at least not immediately) but for society. We have it ingrained that someone who acts unfairly is harmful to society(and potentially our future selves) and that that behavior should be discouraged.
Yup.
Looked at as a single transaction, "spite" in the game makes no sense.
Looked at as a transaction in a social context, "spite" is a form of social discipline. Don't try to screw others, because if you do, you will be met with "spite".
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2013, 03:24:12 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2013, 02:17:51 PM
Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with :mellow:
Not at all baffling, if you think about it.
If the other person is not willing to play "fair" with me, then there is a value to denying him the reward for his not being fair. If that is a small difference, then perhaps it is not worth it - on the other hand, if the difference is large, then my reward (ie the enjoyment i get from denying the asshole his larger share) may very well be greater than the enjoyment I would get from receiving some pittance.
There is an expectation that people should all be "fair" with one another in our society, to some degree or another. And that cannot possibly work if there isn't a willingness to punish those who are not fair.
I am often very amazed at other cultures where casual disregard for the rule of law (for example) is the absolute norm, even in things as trivial as traffic rules. They will say all kinds of things about why they don't follow the basic rules, but at the end of the day, IMO, it simply comes down to a cultural reality where there simply isn't any cultural pressure that says "Yeah, you should let the guy to the right go first because that is the law, and the law is the agreed upon set of rules, and we recognize that if we all follow them in general, the individual loss in any particular interaction will be more than compensated in the overall greater efficiency of the system".
Traffic laws are the easy example of this, but of course it extends much further, and into the basic tolerance for honoring contracts, not screwing your employer even if you get the chance, etc., etc.
Not saying this is better, just that it is rationally consistent.
:yes: There are plenty of traits that seem to be an evolutionary disadvantage on an individual level, even to the point of being suicidal, but in fact are an evolutionary advantage on a group level. Interestingly, a lot of emotions can be classified as such, which means that emotions are a rational response on some level, and not just a sign of immaturity.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 03:53:53 PM
That is the "spite" part I am talking about. It is enlightening to know so many Americans have that tendancy.
Notoriously spiteful people tend to be fucked with less.
Quote from: Maximus on March 01, 2013, 03:19:40 PM
I would be very interested in seeing a paper that showed that logical syllogisms are not universal, as opposed to showing that understanding or value of logical syllogisms is not universal. That may sound ethnocentric especially in light of this article, but differing behaviors across cultures is one thing, differing truth values is another. One of the main premises of logic is that it has a truth value independent of perception or understanding.
It is not that the venn diagram nature of logic isn't universal, but determining that through deduction is not universal. I know of no culture that would not agree "sow pigs are sows", but in the formulation I gave above there would need to be an example seen to draw a conclusion. The best some groups do is give maybes.
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2013, 04:02:40 PM
:yes: There are plenty of traits that seem to be an evolutionary disadvantage on an individual level, even to the point of being suicidal, but in fact are an evolutionary advantage on a group level. Interestingly, a lot of emotions can be classified as such, which means that emotions are a rational response on some level, and not just a sign of immaturity.
I keep telling myself that. :D
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2013, 03:24:12 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2013, 02:17:51 PM
Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with :mellow:
Not at all baffling, if you think about it.
If the other person is not willing to play "fair" with me, then there is a value to denying him the reward for his not being fair. If that is a small difference, then perhaps it is not worth it - on the other hand, if the difference is large, then my reward (ie the enjoyment i get from denying the asshole his larger share) may very well be greater than the enjoyment I would get from receiving some pittance.
There is an expectation that people should all be "fair" with one another in our society, to some degree or another. And that cannot possibly work if there isn't a willingness to punish those who are not fair.
I am often very amazed at other cultures where casual disregard for the rule of law (for example) is the absolute norm, even in things as trivial as traffic rules. They will say all kinds of things about why they don't follow the basic rules, but at the end of the day, IMO, it simply comes down to a cultural reality where there simply isn't any cultural pressure that says "Yeah, you should let the guy to the right go first because that is the law, and the law is the agreed upon set of rules, and we recognize that if we all follow them in general, the individual loss in any particular interaction will be more than compensated in the overall greater efficiency of the system".
Traffic laws are the easy example of this, but of course it extends much further, and into the basic tolerance for honoring contracts, not screwing your employer even if you get the chance, etc., etc.
Not saying this is better, just that it is rationally consistent.
If you think about that in terms of different societies, it may explain some other things. If the general attitude toward the "rules" is not strict, then it would mean little what the rules are. If a person sees himself as not being bound by the rules, he'd be more likely to support making rules that would be disadvantageous to limiting to him personally since he doesn't plan on following them anyway.
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2013, 04:01:21 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 01, 2013, 03:57:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 03:51:07 PM
I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.
My take on it is that when we do that we're not doing it for ourselves(at least not immediately) but for society. We have it ingrained that someone who acts unfairly is harmful to society(and potentially our future selves) and that that behavior should be discouraged.
Yup.
Looked at as a single transaction, "spite" in the game makes no sense.
Looked at as a transaction in a social context, "spite" is a form of social discipline. Don't try to screw others, because if you do, you will be met with "spite".
That's one of the problem with most "games" when played once and when played in sequence they produce profoundly dis-similar results.
In the grand-daddy of them all, the prisoners dilemma, you get very differing results if the game is played once, a fixed number of times or an infinite number of times. Apparently the best strategy is to play trust first then play tit for tat while backstabbing in the last game.
If you are going to play the prisoners dilemma once per hour on the hour for the rest of your life you will get the best results with spite or revenge as your basic strategy. Convince the other players that you will play fair when reciprocated and they will play fair as well up until your deathbed confession.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 01, 2013, 01:42:16 PM
Regrettably, political activists will probably always cling to the fiction that their idea of how to do things can be successfully applied to every society in the same manner.
You mean like invading countries, overturning their governments and trying to institutionalize foreign concepts like democracy upon cultures that have no predisposition to practice them? Those kinds of political activists?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 03:53:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 03:51:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 03:49:14 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 01, 2013, 03:30:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2013, 02:17:51 PM
Also am I the only person who was baffled by the American reaction of punishing the other person? When I read the game I thought I'd take the money regardless because it's more than I came into the game with :mellow:
The value the punisher takes away from the transaction is non-financial.
Yeah, I think that is his point. I am also a bit surprised that so many Americans (N. Americans for that matter) would be willing to look a gift horse in the mouth out of spite.
I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.
That is the "spite" part I am talking about. It is enlightening to know so many Americans have that tendancy.
It is perfectly reasonable - what I am surprised at is that apparently others have the tendency of accommodating others taking advantage of them if there is any kind of cost to resistance...
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2013, 04:02:40 PM
Interestingly, a lot of emotions can be classified as such, which means that emotions are a rational response on some level, and not just a sign of immaturity.
A good example of what the article is talking about. This is largely true in hunter-gatherer societies, less true in modern societies, and much less true in modern American society.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2013, 04:32:02 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 01, 2013, 01:42:16 PM
Regrettably, political activists will probably always cling to the fiction that their idea of how to do things can be successfully applied to every society in the same manner.
You mean like invading countries, overturning their governments and trying to institutionalize foreign concepts like democracy upon cultures that have no predisposition to practice them? Those kinds of political activists?
That...would be an example yes. :P
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 03:55:00 PM
Well now you know. Don't fuck with us. :angry:
:D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2013, 04:32:02 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 01, 2013, 01:42:16 PM
Regrettably, political activists will probably always cling to the fiction that their idea of how to do things can be successfully applied to every society in the same manner.
You mean like invading countries, overturning their governments and trying to institutionalize foreign concepts like democracy upon cultures that have no predisposition to practice them? Those kinds of political activists?
There is a flip side to that as well though - realizing that cultures are fundamentally different, and that you have to understand them also means that you have to accept that sometimes it is the case that some cultures are totally fucked up, and need sometimes radical revision. Or sometimes not so radical revision.
There is nothing inately "right" about a partiicular culturual trait such that it ought to be protected for its own sake.
And further, the idea that some cultures are somehow excluded from basic human rights like freedom to choose their leaders and basic democratic princicples because they "... have no predisposition to practice them" is a cultural meme in an of itself, and one that is pretty much bullshit, in my opinion.
It is either true, in which case I say "Yeah, that sounds like a fucked up culture that could use some rather radical revision" (see Japan post WW2) or it is not true, in which case it sounds suspiciously like an excuse to tolerate despotism and justify getting in bed with pretty horrible human beings, because "Gee, that poor culture cannot help it anyway, so why not make a deal with Mr Pol Pot?"
Quote from: PDH on March 01, 2013, 04:06:04 PM
It is not that the venn diagram nature of logic isn't universal, but determining that through deduction is not universal. I know of no culture that would not agree "sow pigs are sows", but in the formulation I gave above there would need to be an example seen to draw a conclusion. The best some groups do is give maybes.
Maybe it's quibbling over terminology, but what I'm getting from what you're saying is that different cultures differently value different kinds of truth, or more accurately, different means of arriving at the truth.
There is logical truth, highly valued in western society for its contributions to science. It works very well with things that can be given mathematical values.
But there are other means: observation(seeing is believing), consensus(10 million people can't be wrong) and probably others. I have no trouble believing that some societies hold these other methods of more value than logic--hell, I come from such a society. To me that is different than saying that the logical syllogism aren't universal, however.
Quote from: Viking on March 01, 2013, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2013, 04:01:21 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 01, 2013, 03:57:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 03:51:07 PM
I think Berk hit the nail on the head though. When you're just going to get a pittance, meh can be worth it to say fuck you.
My take on it is that when we do that we're not doing it for ourselves(at least not immediately) but for society. We have it ingrained that someone who acts unfairly is harmful to society(and potentially our future selves) and that that behavior should be discouraged.
Yup.
Looked at as a single transaction, "spite" in the game makes no sense.
Looked at as a transaction in a social context, "spite" is a form of social discipline. Don't try to screw others, because if you do, you will be met with "spite".
That's one of the problem with most "games" when played once and when played in sequence they produce profoundly dis-similar results.
In the grand-daddy of them all, the prisoners dilemma, you get very differing results if the game is played once, a fixed number of times or an infinite number of times. Apparently the best strategy is to play trust first then play tit for tat while backstabbing in the last game.
If you are going to play the prisoners dilemma once per hour on the hour for the rest of your life you will get the best results with spite or revenge as your basic strategy. Convince the other players that you will play fair when reciprocated and they will play fair as well up until your deathbed confession.
Yeah in prisoners dilemma tit for tat is the best strategy if the game is played a number of times with a large group of players. But that was not this test. This was a one off take the money or screw both of you. It suprises me that so many North Americans choose the screw both of you option if they view the offer as inequitable.
I would be interested in the results across cultures of the prisoners dilemma game.
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2013, 01:22:00 PM
Interesting article about behaviour, economics, psychology, and culture. Amongst other things, it points out how special Westerners are - especially Americans: http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/
TL;DR
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2013, 04:42:42 PM
There is a flip side to that as well though - realizing that cultures are fundamentally different, and that you have to understand them also means that you have to accept that sometimes it is the case that some cultures are totally fucked up, and need sometimes radical revision. Or sometimes not so radical revision.
There is nothing inately "right" about a partiicular culturual trait such that it ought to be protected for its own sake.
And further, the idea that some cultures are somehow excluded from basic human rights like freedom to choose their leaders and basic democratic princicples because they "... have no predisposition to practice them" is a cultural meme in an of itself, and one that is pretty much bullshit, in my opinion.
It is either true, in which case I say "Yeah, that sounds like a fucked up culture that could use some rather radical revision" (see Japan post WW2) or it is not true, in which case it sounds suspiciously like an excuse to tolerate despotism and justify getting in bed with pretty horrible human beings, because "Gee, that poor culture cannot help it anyway, so why not make a deal with Mr Pol Pot?"
An excellent response, Jeff.
But I was really taking a shot at MiM's obvious categorization of those awfully naive hippy Peace Corps types that try to "change the world" while at the same time ignoring the gravitas-leaden leaders that try to do the same thing with secular Sunni tribal strongmen. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 04:47:33 PM
Yeah in prisoners dilemma tit for tat is the best strategy if the game is played a number of times with a large group of players. But that was not this test. This was a one off take the money are screw both of you. It suprsides me that so many North Americans choose the screw both of you option if they view the offer as inequitable.
Yes, it's an emotional response to spite the other person. However, the culture of not screwing the other guy is built on such emotional responses. In a way, people who act perfectly rationally on an individual level and take whatever is given to them are freeloading on the backs of emotional people spiting the assholes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 04:47:33 PM
It suprises me that so many North Americans choose the screw both of you option if they view the offer as inequitable.
Why? I can very easily imagine someone saying "you're going to make me an unfair offer? Okay, because I will not walk out of here with *less* money than I had coming in, I'm going to use the opportunity to make sure you don't get the money either, *in the hope that next time, with another person, you make a fairer offer*."
Quote from: fahdiz on March 01, 2013, 05:02:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 04:47:33 PM
It suprises me that so many North Americans choose the screw both of you option if they view the offer as inequitable.
Why? I can very easily imagine someone saying "you're going to make me an unfair offer? Okay, because I will not walk out of here with *less* money than I had coming in, I'm going to use the opportunity to make sure you don't get the money either, *in the hope that next time, with another person, you make a fairer offer*."
:yes:
But, of course, an interesting bit of that is just how much money is being gained/lost. Would be interesting to find out the threshold for which the average person is willing to resort to spite in such a situation--I imagine once the dollar value gets into the thousands, one's fairness scruples start to flex a bit.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 01, 2013, 05:03:42 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 01, 2013, 05:02:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 04:47:33 PM
It suprises me that so many North Americans choose the screw both of you option if they view the offer as inequitable.
Why? I can very easily imagine someone saying "you're going to make me an unfair offer? Okay, because I will not walk out of here with *less* money than I had coming in, I'm going to use the opportunity to make sure you don't get the money either, *in the hope that next time, with another person, you make a fairer offer*."
:yes:
But, of course, an interesting bit of that is just how much money is being gained/lost. Would be interesting to find out the threshold for which the average person is willing to resort to spite in such a situation--I imagine once the dollar value gets into the thousands, one's fairness scruples start to flex a bit.
I am sure that in all cases, there's a - usually unconscious - cost/benefit analysis which goes on during the decision making process.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 01, 2013, 05:02:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 04:47:33 PM
It suprises me that so many North Americans choose the screw both of you option if they view the offer as inequitable.
Why? I can very easily imagine someone saying "you're going to make me an unfair offer? Okay, because I will not walk out of here with *less* money than I had coming in, I'm going to use the opportunity to make sure you don't get the money either, *in the hope that next time, with another person, you make a fairer offer*."
I would take it even a step further.
Acquiescing to getting screwed by the first participant is actively immoral in a society that presumes that people ought to act basically fair to one another.
Essentially, when Person B allows Person A to screw them, they are not avoiding being spiteful, they are putting their own interests above that of society at large - they are acting selfishly by deciding that they will allow the even more immoral person to "bribe" them into going along with their own immoral behavior.
The initiator of the transaction lives in a society where the presumption is that people ought to treat one another in a fair manner. If they do not do so, they are acting counter to the dictates of their society.
So now we are to the recipient of the transaction. If they accept the crappy deal because to NOT do so would mean they get nothing, they are basically saying they can be bought off by the corrupt initiator. What he is doing is wrong under the norms of the society, but to refuse to allow him to take advantage would cost me, therefore I will allow him his corruption. That is not a moral stance either, but rather an actively immoral one.
Again, this is all in the context of a society that expects that the initial offer be "fair".
Right, it's something of an "I'm not going to be your enabler" motivation.
What is interesting about all this is how easy it is to case the actions of person B as being immoral either way, as a response to the crappy offer.
If he refuses the offer, he is being spiteful. If he accepts the offer, he is being complicit and selfish.
It is an interesting illustration of the overall quandary of how to respond to an actively corrupt person - it is much easier if person A just makes a "fair" offer to begin with!
And of course, there is the obvious extension of the same issue at the nation level - how do you deal with actively aggressive nations willing to violate the basic tenets of international discourse, even to the extent of war? War is never an acceptable alternative to resolving disagreements - unless the other person starts it...which does seem a bit like bullshit.
Interestingly enough, we can always fall back on the practical example of Western nations, and see that it actually does work - you really can create a system where the use of violence/war is simply not an acceptable alternative. But it only works when everyone agrees to it.
I wonder if the American aversion to haggling prices is related.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 01, 2013, 05:13:35 PM
I wonder if the American aversion to haggling prices is related.
That's an excellent point; I bet it is.
"If you were going to come down to this price anyway, why didn't you just fucking make that offer in the first place? I'm going to go buy a car somewhere else."
Yeah, culture can be a hell of a thing. There are times when people of a certain culture will suffer from a sort of physical or mental illness that is unique that culture. It's called a culture bound syndrome. This also the reason why IQ tests are useless.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2013, 05:17:41 PM
This also the reason why IQ tests are useless.
Wouldn't they be useful if the subjects are all in basically the same culture? Anyway they are not perfect but a lack of perfection is not the same as uselessness.
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2013, 05:22:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2013, 05:17:41 PM
This also the reason why IQ tests are useless.
Wouldn't they be useful if the subjects are all in basically the same culture? Anyway they are not perfect but a lack of perfection is not the same as uselessness.
It's not really clear what the hell they are testing then. If it's suppose to test intelligence in suburban American from the North East but fails to do that for every other person, is it really measuring intelligence at all?
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2013, 05:22:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2013, 05:17:41 PM
This also the reason why IQ tests are useless.
Wouldn't they be useful if the subjects are all in basically the same culture? Anyway they are not perfect but a lack of perfection is not the same as uselessness.
Yeah, one of my biggest problems with liberals is their selective absolutism. They're great fans of subtlety, but when conclusions get uncomfortable, they demand algebraic precision from statistics.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2013, 05:28:07 PM
It's not really clear what the hell they are testing then. If it's suppose to test intelligence in suburban American from the North East but fails to do that for every other person, is it really measuring intelligence at all?
They are testing the subject's ability to perform the tasks on the IQ test relative to other subjects. I don't think anybody is claiming they are the prophet of testing and their IQ test is 100% perfect. If that is the litmus than you cannot test anything.
But even in your case it is useful to measuring the comparative IQs, at least as measured by the test, of northeast suburban Americans. I was not aware my culture was so radically different than people in New Hampshire though.
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2013, 05:12:01 PM
What is interesting about all this is how easy it is to case the actions of person B as being immoral either way, as a response to the crappy offer.
If he refuses the offer, he is being spiteful. If he accepts the offer, he is being complicit and selfish.
It is an interesting illustration of the overall quandary of how to respond to an actively corrupt person - it is much easier if person A just makes a "fair" offer to begin with!
The offerer definitely sets the tone. I wonder in what cultures would the offerer say "here, you take 80% and I'll take 20%"?
Quote from: fahdiz on March 01, 2013, 05:45:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2013, 05:12:01 PM
What is interesting about all this is how easy it is to case the actions of person B as being immoral either way, as a response to the crappy offer.
If he refuses the offer, he is being spiteful. If he accepts the offer, he is being complicit and selfish.
It is an interesting illustration of the overall quandary of how to respond to an actively corrupt person - it is much easier if person A just makes a "fair" offer to begin with!
The offerer definitely sets the tone. I wonder in what cultures would the offerer say "here, you take 80% and I'll take 20%"?
You didn't read the entire article!
Quote from: PDH on March 01, 2013, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 01, 2013, 03:19:40 PM
I would be very interested in seeing a paper that showed that logical syllogisms are not universal, as opposed to showing that understanding or value of logical syllogisms is not universal. That may sound ethnocentric especially in light of this article, but differing behaviors across cultures is one thing, differing truth values is another. One of the main premises of logic is that it has a truth value independent of perception or understanding.
It is not that the venn diagram nature of logic isn't universal, but determining that through deduction is not universal. I know of no culture that would not agree "sow pigs are sows", but in the formulation I gave above there would need to be an example seen to draw a conclusion. The best some groups do is give maybes.
To what extent is the difference between ignorance and cultural difference defined?
Knowing that A=C if A=B and B=C seems more like something I learned in the 5th grade while another child was learning not to stick your hand in the log where the viper lives.
Very interesting indeed. Thank you for sharing that. :)
Quote from: Maximus on March 01, 2013, 04:44:09 PM
Maybe it's quibbling over terminology, but what I'm getting from what you're saying is that different cultures differently value different kinds of truth, or more accurately, different means of arriving at the truth.
There is logical truth, highly valued in western society for its contributions to science. It works very well with things that can be given mathematical values.
But there are other means: observation(seeing is believing), consensus(10 million people can't be wrong) and probably others. I have no trouble believing that some societies hold these other methods of more value than logic--hell, I come from such a society. To me that is different than saying that the logical syllogism aren't universal, however.
I think it is quibbling. The article/book if I remember it properly, stated that the syllogism in the venn diagram way of looking at it is universal. I believe every culture would agree that every cow is not a milk cow. However, it is the problem of deduction that seems to be tripping us up here - many cultures do not seem to accept the given. It is not the petulant third grader arguing, it is just that the variance of the set is enough to demand the logician to review the example in order to draw a conclusion.
Hopefully that might be a bit more clear.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 01, 2013, 06:17:04 PM
To what extent is the difference between ignorance and cultural difference defined?
Knowing that A=C if A=B and B=C seems more like something I learned in the 5th grade while another child was learning not to stick your hand in the log where the viper lives.
Actually, ignorance was the usual definition given as to why people didn't accept the basic A=b, B=C, therefore A=C idea; later looks at how the brain processed this squelched the idea as the brain was processing things more or less the same way with different outcomes.
The problem comes in viewing the world. The sets are large enough there is variance, which we allow in each set and do not count as problematic. The "if, and, or" problem does not exist here, as it is explained away. However, those "quibbling" terms have different effects in different cultures. To simply explain a set of friends as wearing hats is nonsense to those groups - as the possibilities of when they might not wear that hat is is as important as when they do. Thus, the logical aspect is tempered by the reality of needing to actually know/see that person at the time.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 01, 2013, 06:17:04 PM
To what extent is the difference between ignorance and cultural difference defined?
Knowing that A=C if A=B and B=C seems more like something I learned in the 5th grade while another child was learning not to stick your hand in the log where the viper lives.
What if the viper is away and there is a gold coin there instead? Do you not stick your hand in then?
Quote from: PDH on March 01, 2013, 06:59:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 01, 2013, 06:17:04 PM
To what extent is the difference between ignorance and cultural difference defined?
Knowing that A=C if A=B and B=C seems more like something I learned in the 5th grade while another child was learning not to stick your hand in the log where the viper lives.
What if the viper is away and there is a gold coin there instead? Do you not stick your hand in then?
If I'm near a log where a viper lives, I'm going to do what my guide tells me, and I'm guessing he won't give me the heads up on the free gold in a log.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 01, 2013, 07:05:47 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 01, 2013, 06:59:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 01, 2013, 06:17:04 PM
To what extent is the difference between ignorance and cultural difference defined?
Knowing that A=C if A=B and B=C seems more like something I learned in the 5th grade while another child was learning not to stick your hand in the log where the viper lives.
What if the viper is away and there is a gold coin there instead? Do you not stick your hand in then?
If I'm near a log where a viper lives, I'm going to do what my guide tells me, and I'm guessing he won't give me the heads up on the free gold in a log.
Good choice, but are your going to look and see if there is a viper or a coin in there?
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2013, 05:38:32 PM
I was not aware my culture was so radically different than people in New Hampshire though.
Texas compared to civilized America? Yeah it is different. :yes:
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 07:11:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2013, 05:38:32 PM
I was not aware my culture was so radically different than people in New Hampshire though.
Texas compared to civilized America? Yeah it is different. :yes:
Have to agree with the Indian here. Texas was way more scary than going to Budapest.
Quote from: PDH on March 01, 2013, 06:58:49 PM
Thus, the logical aspect is tempered by the reality of needing to actually know/see that person at the time.
Seems like if everything has to be observational, things are going to have to go slowly.
Also, does that then suggest that western culture's tradition of moving away simply from that which can be observed isn't so much progress but just moving towards a different form of reasoning that was useful for the participants in that culture?
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2013, 05:38:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2013, 05:28:07 PM
It's not really clear what the hell they are testing then. If it's suppose to test intelligence in suburban American from the North East but fails to do that for every other person, is it really measuring intelligence at all?
They are testing the subject's ability to perform the tasks on the IQ test relative to other subjects. I don't think anybody is claiming they are the prophet of testing and their IQ test is 100% perfect. If that is the litmus than you cannot test anything.
But even in your case it is useful to measuring the comparative IQs, at least as measured by the test, of northeast suburban Americans. I was not aware my culture was so radically different than people in New Hampshire though.
The question is are they actually testing intelligence? It would seem to me they are more likely testing how in sync you are with the cultural norm. IQ tests often vary measurably amongst different groups in the same culture. The only thing they measure for certain is how well a person is at taking IQ tests.
Quote from: PDH on March 01, 2013, 07:08:59 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 01, 2013, 07:05:47 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 01, 2013, 06:59:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 01, 2013, 06:17:04 PM
To what extent is the difference between ignorance and cultural difference defined?
Knowing that A=C if A=B and B=C seems more like something I learned in the 5th grade while another child was learning not to stick your hand in the log where the viper lives.
What if the viper is away and there is a gold coin there instead? Do you not stick your hand in then?
If I'm near a log where a viper lives, I'm going to do what my guide tells me, and I'm guessing he won't give me the heads up on the free gold in a log.
Good choice, but are your going to look and see if there is a viper or a coin in there?
Maybe I cautiously poke around with a stick.
I'm not sure where you are going with this...
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2013, 05:28:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2013, 05:22:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2013, 05:17:41 PM
This also the reason why IQ tests are useless.
Wouldn't they be useful if the subjects are all in basically the same culture? Anyway they are not perfect but a lack of perfection is not the same as uselessness.
Yeah, one of my biggest problems with liberals is their selective absolutism. They're great fans of subtlety, but when conclusions get uncomfortable, they demand algebraic precision from statistics.
I realized that IQ tests were useless when I found out that scored abnormally high one.
Quote from: PDH on March 01, 2013, 06:50:49 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 01, 2013, 04:44:09 PM
Maybe it's quibbling over terminology, but what I'm getting from what you're saying is that different cultures differently value different kinds of truth, or more accurately, different means of arriving at the truth.
There is logical truth, highly valued in western society for its contributions to science. It works very well with things that can be given mathematical values.
But there are other means: observation(seeing is believing), consensus(10 million people can't be wrong) and probably others. I have no trouble believing that some societies hold these other methods of more value than logic--hell, I come from such a society. To me that is different than saying that the logical syllogism aren't universal, however.
I think it is quibbling. The article/book if I remember it properly, stated that the syllogism in the venn diagram way of looking at it is universal. I believe every culture would agree that every cow is not a milk cow. However, it is the problem of deduction that seems to be tripping us up here - many cultures do not seem to accept the given. It is not the petulant third grader arguing, it is just that the variance of the set is enough to demand the logician to review the example in order to draw a conclusion.
Hopefully that might be a bit more clear.
I'd be interested in reading the paper if you can find it.
Quote from: Maximus on March 01, 2013, 07:24:41 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 01, 2013, 06:50:49 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 01, 2013, 04:44:09 PM
Maybe it's quibbling over terminology, but what I'm getting from what you're saying is that different cultures differently value different kinds of truth, or more accurately, different means of arriving at the truth.
There is logical truth, highly valued in western society for its contributions to science. It works very well with things that can be given mathematical values.
But there are other means: observation(seeing is believing), consensus(10 million people can't be wrong) and probably others. I have no trouble believing that some societies hold these other methods of more value than logic--hell, I come from such a society. To me that is different than saying that the logical syllogism aren't universal, however.
I think it is quibbling. The article/book if I remember it properly, stated that the syllogism in the venn diagram way of looking at it is universal. I believe every culture would agree that every cow is not a milk cow. However, it is the problem of deduction that seems to be tripping us up here - many cultures do not seem to accept the given. It is not the petulant third grader arguing, it is just that the variance of the set is enough to demand the logician to review the example in order to draw a conclusion.
Hopefully that might be a bit more clear.
I'd be interested in reading the paper if you can find it.
I will look.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 01, 2013, 05:02:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 04:47:33 PM
It suprises me that so many North Americans choose the screw both of you option if they view the offer as inequitable.
Why? I can very easily imagine someone saying "you're going to make me an unfair offer? Okay, because I will not walk out of here with *less* money than I had coming in, I'm going to use the opportunity to make sure you don't get the money either, *in the hope that next time, with another person, you make a fairer offer*."
Because such behaviour is irrational. You are going to turn down found money just because you are not getting more found money. In this experiment there is no next time. Just as in life the chances are you are not going to meet the same person you were spiteful toward. And if you do they are unlikely to be all that kindly disposed to you....
As mentioned to Viking this is not like the prisoners dilemma exercise where the tit for tat rule did best. In that experiment the player was guarranteed to have future interactions and most importantly negative outcomes could actually help the score by denying points to an adversary.
This is just turning down free money because of some imagined slight.
Of course this kind of irrational behaviour also contributes to my personal financial well being. It would often be better for parties to give a bit and make a deal they both hate rather than litigate. Thank goodness for whatever irrational impulse North Americans have to act in this way.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2013, 07:24:20 PM
I realized that IQ tests were useless when I found out that scored abnormally high one.
That's not vexing at all. Your problem is maturity and sanity, not raw intelligence.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 08:40:23 PM
Because such behaviour is irrational.
It is not of necessity irrational, no. You're refusing to see that there's more to the decision than the dollar values between the two participants and incorrectly proposing that there is no social dynamic to the outcome, even in this experiment.
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2013, 09:04:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2013, 07:24:20 PM
I realized that IQ tests were useless when I found out that scored abnormally high one.
That's not vexing at all. Your problem is maturity and sanity, not raw intelligence.
Maturity?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 08:44:20 PM
Of course this kind of irrational behaviour also contributes to my personal financial well being. It would often be better for parties to give a bit and make a deal they both hate rather than litigate. Thank goodness for whatever irrational impulse North Americans have to act in this way.
:lol:
Quote from: fahdiz on March 01, 2013, 09:07:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 08:40:23 PM
Because such behaviour is irrational.
It is not of necessity irrational, no. You're refusing to see that there's more to the decision than the dollar values between the two participants and that there is no social dynamic to the outcome, even in this experiment.
You have to be patient with cc. He is from the North American cultural group, that struggles to see things beyond their narrow self interests. :P
Reading more on this topic online, I found this bit of speculation particularly plausible.
http://neuroanthropology.net/2010/07/10/we-agree-its-weird-but-is-it-weird-enough/
QuoteMy own candidate for one source of the oddity
Although Henrich and colleagues are laudably restrained in speculating about the sources of differences between WEIRD populations and other groups, I want to put another candidate on the table that's discussed by Lana B. Karasik, Karen E. Adolph, Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda, and Marc. H. Bornstein in one of the responses that I enjoyed a lot. They talk about 'WEIRD walking,' the way that WEIRD populations are also outliers in terms of motor development in ways that many people in the field overlook.
Karasik and colleagues describe how WEIRD children's patterns of motor development became enshrined in psychology through testing procedures, test items and norms into an understanding of universal 'stages' of motor development (see 2010: 95). Even when cross-cultural research was conducted, these culturally-specific criteria, derived from examining WEIRD developmental pathways, meant that researchers were often carrying with them tools that were ill-suited to study other sorts of children. Or these psychologists were simply comparing diverse children to WEIRD ones on standards set by the WEIRD children.
One example of this that I have discussed is overhand throwing (http://neuroanthropology.net/2009/02/01/throwing-like-a-girls-brain/), a task that has been used in some tests of motor coordination in spite of the fact that different cultural groups demonstrate enormous variability in the activity because it is a skill, not a universally-acquired entailment of being human. Some children learn to throw in environments that support, model and reward the activity; others never really learn to throw particularly well because their activity patterns simply do not include the opportunity to learn (I've written in a book chapter that will soon appear about 'throwing like a Brazilian,' an analogue to 'throwing like a girl').
Karasik and colleagues point out that even such 'basic' motor abilities at crawling are susceptible to manipulation: the trend to put newborn children on their backs to sleep in the West, for example, has retarded the development of crawling in a population where children formerly would routinely sleep on their bellies. In some groups, normal development may not even include crawling, children skipping the stage entirely or using some other intermittent form of locomotion, like 'bum-shuffling' or scooting about while seated.
In my own research, the physical abilities of WEIRD university students stand out more clearly as strikingly odd than many of their other traits, and I'm convinced that the extraordinary inactivity of this population, coupled with their high calorie diets, has more diverse and wide-ranging effects than simply leading to an epidemic of obesity, Type-II diabetes, and other diet-related health problems. For example, capoeira instruction, a subject close to my heart, has to start at a much different place for American youth than it does with Brazilian kids in Salvador where I did my field research. Even teaching salsa lessons at a Midwestern US university drove home the profoundly different motor starting point, prior to the lessons, of young adults in the US compared to Brazilians (and I suspect, to many populations in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa and elsewhere).
The point is not just to rehearse the typical alarmist discussion of the 'obesity epidemic,' but also to point out the profound potential implications of radical differences in activity environments for children during their development. I don't think most WEIRD theorists realize just how powerful an influence sedentary living is on our psychological, physiological, metabolic, endocrine, and neural development because most of us, subjects and researchers alike, are SO sedentary. WEIRD bodies have so much unused energy from their diets, especially with their levels of activity plummeting, that I find it hard to believe we understand metabolic patterns that would have dominated much of human prehistory.
To argue that WEIRD subjects are a good window in on 'human nature' is difficult when, from the perspective of metabolic energy and expenditure, the WEIRD are such outliers in the whole history of our species. We know that this radically unusual metabolic situation — massive energy surplus with less and less expenditure — is profoundly affecting mortality patterns: in WEIRD societies, most of the leading causes of death are, arguably, directly linked to the human body's difficulty of coping with this situation, and that's even after generations of sedentary life in which to adapt. But the psychological and neurological consequences of sedentarism are less well understood in part, in my opinion, because most WEIRD researchers have a hard time even imagining how arduous life would have been. Throughout human existence, most humans likely have been phenomenally active, and athletic, compared to WEIRD populations, out of necessity.
I'm going to have to write something more in depth on this, but I just feel the need to flag it. If I had written a response, I probably would have focused on this trait because it runs against WEIRD researchers' self understanding. The WEIRD tend to think of themselves as unusually healthy, and by measures of things like infectious disease rates, death from accident, and infant mortality, they certainly are. But from a broad, cross-cultural view, the extraordinary inactivity of the WEIRD, coupled with their access to very energy dense, highly processed food sources, makes them outliers in ways that I'm not sure we fully comprehend.
Also, this sort of addresses Berkut's issue.
http://www.economist.com/node/21555876
QuoteMost researchers used to think the punishment of freeloaders was a universal human instinct that had evolved to promote co-operation. Studies in the West supported this belief. They showed that people band together to reward co-operative behaviour and to punish those who refuse to contribute to the common good. These experiments, which employed what are known as public-goods games to test individual choices, gave players money they could either contribute to the group, raising the value of everyone's stake, or hold for themselves, ultimately harming everyone if others refuse to co-operate. But they were lacking in two ways. One was their WEIRD participants. The other was more subtle. It did not occur to the experimenters to allow participants to punish co-operators as well as freeloaders, even though those who had been freeloading might wish to do so in revenge for having been punished themselves, in previous rounds of the game.
But that did occur to Benedikt Herrmann of Nottingham university, in Britain. A few years ago Dr Herrmann ran a series of experiments designed to see how public-goods games would play out in 16 countries, not all of them rich and Western. This time, he allowed freeloaders to punish co-operators, a behaviour known as antisocial punishment. His results were striking. Most of the world, the experiments suggested, bears little resemblance to Harvard or, indeed, anywhere else in the West, where antisocial punishment is virtually absent. In places like South Korea, Greece, Russia and Saudi Arabia, antisocial punishment proved to be almost as common as collaboration.
Dr Rand is re-running Dr Herrmann's experiments on Mechanical Turk—at a tenth of the cost of the original work. The early results, published last year in Nature Communications, suggest Dr Herrmann was right. Punishment did not evolve, as conventional wisdom has it, as a positive behaviour intended to encourage co-operation. Instead, it evolved as a self-interested weapon to fend off competitors, even when that competition is, in fact, a strategy of collaboration. In places where rules and institutions do not protect co-operators, freeloaders consistently dominate.
I find S. Korea being on that list interesting since it has developed a relatively strong rule of law in the last twenty five years, stronger certainly then the other countries mentioned. I wonder how long it would take the cultural inclination on punishing/favoring freeloaders to adapt to that reality.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2013, 09:11:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2013, 09:04:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2013, 07:24:20 PM
I realized that IQ tests were useless when I found out that scored abnormally high one.
That's not vexing at all. Your problem is maturity and sanity, not raw intelligence.
Maturity?
:ph34r:
Don't let me down Gulley. I'm expecting *genius* form you. Break down Raz as you see him and explain him to us.
Quote from: PDH on March 01, 2013, 02:16:01 PM
I remember an psychological anthropology paper from a few years ago that basically showed the Western system of syllogistic logic is not universal. Different cultures have experience basic logic that does not accept "if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C" type of reasoning, despite similar regions of the brain being activated.
All of Bob's friends wear hats.
Mike is one of Bob's friends.
Does Mike wear a hat?
That could not be answered in entire regions, the main way of responding was "I can't see Mike, I don't know." Culture is quite a filter for our weak little brains.
I've taught undergraduate mathematical logic in Britain and the US, and think it's hard to explain even basic propositional logic to most people. It's something that requires you to learn a (simple) abstract mathematical system, and people have trouble with this.
The most obvious problem is with "if". It's meaning is simply different from the everyday English meaning, where "if A, then B" suggests some causal relationship.
One (Chinese) student had trouble with "and", although I don't remember what the problem was - probably something to do with negating it. My best student was also Chinese.
Almost everybody has trouble with quantifiers, and things like the difference between "for all x, for some y, y is bigger than x" and "for some y, for all x, y is bigger than x."
For a more contrived example: One of Mike's friends is wearing a hat. Is it true that if Mike has no friends, then you are wearing a hat? By the rules of formal logic, this is a perfectly good question, with the answer "yes". But by the usual (Western?) rules of human interaction, it would have the answer "no", with a strange look at the person asking. The assumptions are unnatural enough that the person being questioned applies the rules of "this guy is being a dick" rather than the rules of logic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 08:40:23 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 01, 2013, 05:02:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 04:47:33 PM
It suprises me that so many North Americans choose the screw both of you option if they view the offer as inequitable.
Why? I can very easily imagine someone saying "you're going to make me an unfair offer? Okay, because I will not walk out of here with *less* money than I had coming in, I'm going to use the opportunity to make sure you don't get the money either, *in the hope that next time, with another person, you make a fairer offer*."
Because such behaviour is irrational. You are going to turn down found money just because you are not getting more found money. In this experiment there is no next time. Just as in life the chances are you are not going to meet the same person you were spiteful toward. And if you do they are unlikely to be all that kindly disposed to you....
As mentioned to Viking this is not like the prisoners dilemma exercise where the tit for tat rule did best. In that experiment the player was guarranteed to have future interactions and most importantly negative outcomes could actually help the score by denying points to an adversary.
This is just turning down free money because of some imagined slight.
It's not irrational. You are enforcing a social mores (is that the singular for that word?). You may not run into that person again, but you do it with the understanding that if enough people enact these sanctions on individuals who aren't behaving properly, bad behavior will be deterred.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2013, 02:49:01 AM
:ph34r:
Don't let me down Gulley. I'm expecting *genius* form you. Break down Raz as you see him and explain him to us.
My IQ only puts me at "highly intelligent". Sorry. :(
Many cultures are stupid.
Quote from: Pishtaco on March 02, 2013, 04:40:20 AMFor a more contrived example: One of Mike's friends is wearing a hat. Is it true that if Mike has no friends, then you are wearing a hat? By the rules of formal logic, this is a perfectly good question, with the answer "yes". But by the usual (Western?) rules of human interaction, it would have the answer "no", with a strange look at the person asking. The assumptions are unnatural enough that the person being questioned applies the rules of "this guy is being a dick" rather than the rules of logic.
That's a good illustration :bowler:
How is the logical answer to that "yes?" :huh:
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2013, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: Pishtaco on March 02, 2013, 04:40:20 AMFor a more contrived example: One of Mike's friends is wearing a hat. Is it true that if Mike has no friends, then you are wearing a hat? By the rules of formal logic, this is a perfectly good question, with the answer "yes". But by the usual (Western?) rules of human interaction, it would have the answer "no", with a strange look at the person asking. The assumptions are unnatural enough that the person being questioned applies the rules of "this guy is being a dick" rather than the rules of logic.
That's a good illustration :bowler:
Yes.
What needs to be factored is how seriously different cultures take these contrived question/thought experiments ?
My gut reaction is people from our western culture and specifically 'us' who spend many hours arguing the toss about ideas/constructs/issues on the interwebs, might take it far more seriously than someone from a poorer country, who's used to hard physically work and a less comfortable lifestyle.
Many of those people might culturally react as if it was a pie in sky style question, not taking it seriously and being bemused/amused ?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2013, 06:20:02 PM
How is the logical answer to that "yes?" :huh:
It's one of those material implication thingies. The first two parts contradict each other so it doesn't matter what the third part is, it will be true. At least I think. It's all very confusing.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2013, 07:51:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2013, 06:20:02 PM
How is the logical answer to that "yes?" :huh:
It's one of those material implication thingies. The first two parts contradict each other so it doesn't matter what the third part is, it will be true. At least I think. It's all very confusing.
I thinks it's a joke based on the notion that "no friend of Mike wears a hat" ? :bowler:
If you say so. I'm weak on logic and British culture. I just gave it my best shot.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2013, 08:40:05 PM
If you say so. I'm weak on logic and British culture. I just gave it my best shot.
I'm strong on British logic and weak on culture, therefore I could be entirely wrong. :bowler:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2013, 06:20:02 PM
How is the logical answer to that "yes?" :huh:
The statement is "If Mike has no friends, you are wearing a hat." Since Mike has a hat-wearing friend, the first part of the conditional is false, so the second part is immaterial.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 02, 2013, 10:32:01 PM
The statement is "If Mike has no friends, you are wearing a hat." Since Mike has a hat-wearing friend, the first part of the conditional is false, so the second part is immaterial.
I got that. But I still don't see how that makes yes a correct answer.
Because he's asking you to evaluate the truth of a proposition "x -> y " when x is false. That proposition will be true so the answer will be yes, it's true.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 02, 2013, 11:40:10 PM
Because he's asking you to evaluate the truth of a proposition "x -> y " when x is false. That proposition will be true so the answer will be yes, it's true.
You're given two contradictory predicates that have no relaationship to the outcome variable. I could be missing something basic, but it seems to me the correct answer is "there's no way of knowing given the information you've provided." Or i suppose i could feel the top of my head.
You don't know if I'm wearing a hat. However, you do know that Mike has a friend. So Mike not having friends can imply anything you want. For x -> y to be true doesn't require that y is true.
I suppose we'll need to wait for Fish Taco or Jake to explain it to us then. JR may know. He's talked about that kind of stuff before and may be literate in the weird world of formal logic. I remember some of this from college but to me it seemed like a magical language of symbols created for the purpose of making elves disappear or some other unholy sorcery.
For the people who don't understand logic there's always cooking and embroidery. :)
What Peter Wiggin said. The question isn't asking "are you wearing a hat", it's asking "is the following implication true: if X then Y?"
Quote from: Pishtaco on March 03, 2013, 03:56:17 AM
What Peter Wiggin said. The question isn't asking "are you wearing a hat", it's asking "is the following implication true: if X then Y?"
I actually was reading it wrong the first time, but now that you put it that way, I still don't see how the correct answer is "yes."
I never really intuitively got the "if false, then true" is true logic either. Seems like you need a "maybe" besides "true" and "false". The only way of thinking about it that made sense to me is that you assume that a statement is true unless you can disprove it, which is why only "if true, then false" logic is false.
And that's exactly the point, isn't it? The formal rules of logic sometimes diverge from common sense observational truth; while common sense observational truth often rests on cultural components, and thus they vary across cultures.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2013, 12:10:03 PM
Quote from: Pishtaco on March 03, 2013, 03:56:17 AM
What Peter Wiggin said. The question isn't asking "are you wearing a hat", it's asking "is the following implication true: if X then Y?"
I actually was reading it wrong the first time, but now that you put it that way, I still don't see how the correct answer is "yes."
The truth-value of "if A then B" is calculated from the truth-values of A and B by the following table:
A B if A then B
------------------
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
That's the complete semantics of "if ... then ..." in classical logic.
This captures very well how "if ... then ..." is used in mathematics. Many mathematical theorems have the form "for every object x from some collection S, if x satisfies some property P, then x satisfies some other property Q". To prove that the "if ... then ... " part is true for every x, by the table above you only need to do some work for the xs which satisfy P, since for the ones that don't satisfy P, the implication is true automatically.
This is my favorite Languish thread in a long while.
I don't doubt Pishtaco that it is axiomatic mathematically, but no, the concept that X implies Y when X is false is not true does not rest on a cultural assumption in my opinion.
Quote from: DGuller on March 03, 2013, 12:20:49 PM
I never really intuitively got the "if false, then true" is true logic either. Seems like you need a "maybe" besides "true" and "false". The only way of thinking about it that made sense to me is that you assume that a statement is true unless you can disprove it, which is why only "if true, then false" logic is false.
I think Pishtaco is just being a dick.
Quote from: Jacob on March 03, 2013, 12:28:38 PM
And that's exactly the point, isn't it? The formal rules of logic sometimes diverge from common sense observational truth
They aren't going to diverge from observational truth. Observational truth may diverge from what someone thinks they know, or "common sense", but that seems more of a case of ignorance rather than cultural difference, even if universal in some population.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 01, 2013, 10:09:08 PM
Reading more on this topic online, I found this bit of speculation particularly plausible.
http://neuroanthropology.net/2010/07/10/we-agree-its-weird-but-is-it-weird-enough/
QuoteMy own candidate for one source of the oddity
Although Henrich and colleagues are laudably restrained in speculating about the sources of differences between WEIRD populations and other groups, I want to put another candidate on the table that's discussed by Lana B. Karasik, Karen E. Adolph, Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda, and Marc. H. Bornstein in one of the responses that I enjoyed a lot. They talk about 'WEIRD walking,' the way that WEIRD populations are also outliers in terms of motor development in ways that many people in the field overlook.
Karasik and colleagues describe how WEIRD children's patterns of motor development became enshrined in psychology through testing procedures, test items and norms into an understanding of universal 'stages' of motor development (see 2010: 95). Even when cross-cultural research was conducted, these culturally-specific criteria, derived from examining WEIRD developmental pathways, meant that researchers were often carrying with them tools that were ill-suited to study other sorts of children. Or these psychologists were simply comparing diverse children to WEIRD ones on standards set by the WEIRD children.
One example of this that I have discussed is overhand throwing (http://neuroanthropology.net/2009/02/01/throwing-like-a-girls-brain/), a task that has been used in some tests of motor coordination in spite of the fact that different cultural groups demonstrate enormous variability in the activity because it is a skill, not a universally-acquired entailment of being human. Some children learn to throw in environments that support, model and reward the activity; others never really learn to throw particularly well because their activity patterns simply do not include the opportunity to learn (I've written in a book chapter that will soon appear about 'throwing like a Brazilian,' an analogue to 'throwing like a girl').
Karasik and colleagues point out that even such 'basic' motor abilities at crawling are susceptible to manipulation: the trend to put newborn children on their backs to sleep in the West, for example, has retarded the development of crawling in a population where children formerly would routinely sleep on their bellies. In some groups, normal development may not even include crawling, children skipping the stage entirely or using some other intermittent form of locomotion, like 'bum-shuffling' or scooting about while seated.
In my own research, the physical abilities of WEIRD university students stand out more clearly as strikingly odd than many of their other traits, and I'm convinced that the extraordinary inactivity of this population, coupled with their high calorie diets, has more diverse and wide-ranging effects than simply leading to an epidemic of obesity, Type-II diabetes, and other diet-related health problems. For example, capoeira instruction, a subject close to my heart, has to start at a much different place for American youth than it does with Brazilian kids in Salvador where I did my field research. Even teaching salsa lessons at a Midwestern US university drove home the profoundly different motor starting point, prior to the lessons, of young adults in the US compared to Brazilians (and I suspect, to many populations in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa and elsewhere).
The point is not just to rehearse the typical alarmist discussion of the 'obesity epidemic,' but also to point out the profound potential implications of radical differences in activity environments for children during their development. I don't think most WEIRD theorists realize just how powerful an influence sedentary living is on our psychological, physiological, metabolic, endocrine, and neural development because most of us, subjects and researchers alike, are SO sedentary. WEIRD bodies have so much unused energy from their diets, especially with their levels of activity plummeting, that I find it hard to believe we understand metabolic patterns that would have dominated much of human prehistory.
To argue that WEIRD subjects are a good window in on 'human nature' is difficult when, from the perspective of metabolic energy and expenditure, the WEIRD are such outliers in the whole history of our species. We know that this radically unusual metabolic situation — massive energy surplus with less and less expenditure — is profoundly affecting mortality patterns: in WEIRD societies, most of the leading causes of death are, arguably, directly linked to the human body's difficulty of coping with this situation, and that's even after generations of sedentary life in which to adapt. But the psychological and neurological consequences of sedentarism are less well understood in part, in my opinion, because most WEIRD researchers have a hard time even imagining how arduous life would have been. Throughout human existence, most humans likely have been phenomenally active, and athletic, compared to WEIRD populations, out of necessity.
I'm going to have to write something more in depth on this, but I just feel the need to flag it. If I had written a response, I probably would have focused on this trait because it runs against WEIRD researchers' self understanding. The WEIRD tend to think of themselves as unusually healthy, and by measures of things like infectious disease rates, death from accident, and infant mortality, they certainly are. But from a broad, cross-cultural view, the extraordinary inactivity of the WEIRD, coupled with their access to very energy dense, highly processed food sources, makes them outliers in ways that I'm not sure we fully comprehend.
This is going back a bit in the thread, but labeling the populations as WEIRD seems a bit misleading. All the US, Canada, western and central europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and probably a few others are going to be WEIRD. Plus significant portions of Latin America and Eastern Europe as well as non trivial parts of China and the rest of Asia.
With the exception of Japan and S. Korea, the countries you named are all Western, and what I think is important about the label is the individualist philosophy that goes with it.
I don't think that becoming educated, industrialized, rich and democratic will neccessarly lead to the population becoming as individualistic as Westeners in general and Americans in particular.
However the guy I quoted that from agrees with you, and writes about his criticsm of that quite a bit in the whole article if I remember right.
My first thoughts were on how this game is warped with being played in such a poor place where they're dealing in days worth of wages where steady work is hard to come by vs. America where the money is nice (of course) but not really needed for survival and can be spent in such frivolous ways as punishing dicks.
QuoteIn no society did he find people who were purely selfish (that is, who always offered the lowest amount, and never refused a split), but average offers from place to place varied widely and, in some societies—ones where gift-giving is heavily used to curry favor or gain allegiance—the first player would often make overly generous offers in excess of 60 percent, and the second player would often reject them, behaviors almost never observed among Americans.
Now this is bizzare.
QuoteThere, generous financial offers were turned down because people's minds had been shaped by a cultural norm that taught them that the acceptance of generous gifts brought burdensome obligations.
haha. Understandable. But this really sounds like a case of not quite getting the game.
.
Quote from: Tyr on March 03, 2013, 11:21:00 PMhaha. Understandable. But this really sounds like a case of not quite getting the game.
They may get the game, but that doesn't isolate it from the rest of their lives. What would prevent the person deciding the split from approaching the person who accepted it afterwards for some favour? After all, they not only gave them free money but they gave them more than they took for themselves. Surely it's only fair that the recipient returns the selfless act in an appropriate fashion.
Quote from: Jacob on March 04, 2013, 12:41:19 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 03, 2013, 11:21:00 PMhaha. Understandable. But this really sounds like a case of not quite getting the game.
They may get the game, but that doesn't isolate it from the rest of their lives. What would prevent the person deciding the split from approaching the person who accepted it afterwards for some favour? After all, they not only gave them free money but they gave them more than they took for themselves. Surely it's only fair that the recipient returns the selfless act in an appropriate fashion.
Isn't one of the features of the game that you don't know who the other person is?
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2013, 01:16:37 AMIsn't one of the features of the game that you don't know who the other person is?
Not sure. But even if it is, there are plenty of places in the world where the "rules of the game" are more of a suggestion than a description of how things actually work :)
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2013, 01:16:37 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 04, 2013, 12:41:19 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 03, 2013, 11:21:00 PMhaha. Understandable. But this really sounds like a case of not quite getting the game.
They may get the game, but that doesn't isolate it from the rest of their lives. What would prevent the person deciding the split from approaching the person who accepted it afterwards for some favour? After all, they not only gave them free money but they gave them more than they took for themselves. Surely it's only fair that the recipient returns the selfless act in an appropriate fashion.
Isn't one of the features of the game that you don't know who the other person is?
Ahhh, but you are forgetting that one of the things they are testing here is internalized "rules" of society that create standards of behavior that often go beyond the game.
Even if you understand the game, and know there cannot be repurcussions directly, there are still repurcussions based on your own internal sense of morality/ethics/ reasonableness.
Using the cultural stereotypes, the American may be more apt to "punish" the swindler, even if they know it cannot really amtter in the direct context of the game, because they feel it is the "right" thing to do.
In this particular case, someone may very well refuse a generous "gift" even if they know the other person cannot follow up on the presumed obligation, simply because it is ingrained in them that it is unethical to accept overly generous gifts from other - either because it will create an obligation on themselves that they may not wish to fulfill, or even that it could create a moral obligation on themselves that they cannot fulfill, perhaps even because they don't know who they would owe it to!
I am not saying that is the case, since I have no idea, but just trying to point out that these kinds of cultural meems aftern go much deeper than a simple risk/benefit analysis may suggest.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 03, 2013, 03:50:53 PM
This is my favorite Languish thread in a long while.
Not nearly enough monkey pooh flinging. Snooze.
Quote from: Berkut on March 04, 2013, 02:02:50 AM
Ahhh, but you are forgetting that one of the things they are testing here is internalized "rules" of society that create standards of behavior that often go beyond the game.
Even if you understand the game, and know there cannot be repurcussions directly, there are still repurcussions based on your own internal sense of morality/ethics/ reasonableness.
Using the cultural stereotypes, the American may be more apt to "punish" the swindler, even if they know it cannot really amtter in the direct context of the game, because they feel it is the "right" thing to do.
In this particular case, someone may very well refuse a generous "gift" even if they know the other person cannot follow up on the presumed obligation, simply because it is ingrained in them that it is unethical to accept overly generous gifts from other - either because it will create an obligation on themselves that they may not wish to fulfill, or even that it could create a moral obligation on themselves that they cannot fulfill, perhaps even because they don't know who they would owe it to!
I am not saying that is the case, since I have no idea, but just trying to point out that these kinds of cultural meems aftern go much deeper than a simple risk/benefit analysis may suggest.
Could be.
But I think there they'll still be thinking "OK, so this western guy is gonna reveal who each person was later right? Or maybe I'll meet everyone taking part in the study and a girl will say she gave $x". Not quite getting the rules.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 01, 2013, 01:42:16 PM
Kinda blows away the thinking that some single way of doing things can be applied globally over all of humanity. Marketing people know this, and market products differently in different cultures. Regrettably, political activists will probably always cling to the fiction that their idea of how to do things can be successfully applied to every society in the same manner.
Unfortunately.
One excellent example has been happening in my country for over a decade now: Liberal thinkers (US educated or US influenced) are always trying to "liberalize" all markets (previously state-controlled), because they firmly believe that, if many private companies are present in a market, increased competition will lead to lower prices.
And so they have been liberalizing several sectors (gas, electricity, telecommunications, etc) like mad, allowing many companies to compete.
The end result? MASSIVE PRICE INCREASES. People now routinely pay 100-200% more than when the market was run by the State.
The reason? In Portugal, when several companies are present in the same market, it isn't the cheapest one that sells more; rather, two things happen:
1) People always think that the most expensive offer must be the best and go for it;
2) The cheaper companies look at the prices of the most expensive one and think "if they can get away with it, so can we".
So the result is that prices are levelled by the HIGHEST price, not by the lowest.
And yet our Liberal economists keep failing to grasp this and insist on liberalizing markets, only to be permanently baffled by the constant price increases.
It reminds me of something that happened over 8 years ago, during a meeting with our (then) CEO, who was foreign, and the (then) head of my division. The CEO was worried we weren't selling well, and our head of division just told him to "raise the prices by 60%". The CEO was horrified at the idea ('if our sales are low, how can they rise if we hike the prices by 60%?'), as it went against everything he had learned [he had been educated in the US; Yale or Harvard or something like that].
But we all pressured him, and disgustedly he acccepted.
The end result? Our sales went up 30%.
Wow. People in Portugal must be rich or something. Even if I wanted to buy only the most expensive electricity produced by only the fanciest of coal plants necessity would dictate I go for the cheaper option. I thought we were the ones who lived outside of our means.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 04, 2013, 07:48:49 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 03, 2013, 03:50:53 PM
This is my favorite Languish thread in a long while.
Not nearly enough monkey pooh flinging. Snooze.
Yeah. Someone needs to drag Meri in & insult her. That'll start the usual chain reaction.
Hey Meri, is that a hat you're wearing, or are you just happy to see us?
Whore pills should be paid for by the private citizen.
And you have to supply your own Pez dispenser. A Chewbacca one.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2013, 10:35:39 AM
Wow. People in Portugal must be rich or something. Even if I wanted to buy only the most expensive electricity produced by only the fanciest of coal plants necessity would dictate I go for the cheaper option. I thought we were the ones who lived outside of our means.
Actually, that's usually a sad joke here. An e-mail runs around saying that 'the Portuguese complain about being poor, but you have to be rich, because you accept paying 300% more than Americans for electricity, internet, food, water and lots of other stuff".
The price limit is just "when people really, really, cannot afford it". Then you need to lower it a bit so that they can buy the most expensive things they can.
(foreign companies have also adopted this strategy, because coming here with the lowest prices means you'll lose clients, not gain them)
EDIT: just as an example, console video games are sold here for 70 euro each (about $91). A Blu-Ray movie costs 30 euro ($39).You know how little the average portuguese makes. Yet they sell (I buy my stuff at Amazon.uk to get prices 50-70% lower).
Talking about differing cultural values, I saw this over at Gene expression, and thought of this thread. There's some validity to this rant, but the author over generalizes.
QuoteWhat is the good life?
By Razib Khan | February 25, 2013 2:13 am
Now that I have a daughter I do reflect a bit more on what the purpose of my life is, because at some point I want to talk to her about the purpose of her life. There is a little bit of irony in this insofar as now she is a primary purpose of my life! But in any case, though Chris Rock's raison d'être speaks to me, additionally my job is also to make sure that my daughter doesn't become a C.P.A. Certain professions, such as dentistry or accountancy, are honorable. But there are enough people who want to enter those financially lucrative professions as it is. In a world of such absolute affluence we can afford the luxury of the life the mind. Aristotle's father was a physician, no doubt a good man. But his memory persists only because of the incandescent brilliance of his son, who ventured into wide intellectual waters.
Speaking of Aristotle, Aristotle Onassis is reputed to have said that "If women didn't exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning." Point taken, and I think there's a great deal of truth in this. But let me rephrase it: if books didn't exist, all the time in the world would have no meaning. To many this sort of assertion would seem strange, but I suspect among my readership it is comprehensible. And by books I don't mean to imply paper and ink and binding, I mean the information encoded within those books.
With that out of the way, I thought I would share an email from a long time reader (though only very rarely a correspondent). I don't necessarily agree with everything stated here obviously, and I hope that the comments don't devolve in discussions of the nature of East Asian society. I didn't feel comfortable expurgating that aspect just because some might take objection though. Rather, it is to consider how one might find a place to flourish and be nurtured socially in their intellectual explorations.
I do not know how your off-line persona differs, if at all, but I'm assuming your on-line self is close to the truth. Obviously, life demands that we all be somewhat multifaceted in how we express ourselves in different situations. I have always had problems in dealing with people's irrational emotionalism over many issues. I learned quite early that although everyone seems capable of logic, they definitely do not have the same innate ability or even desire to be rational in their approach to life. Most people are this way, as I am sure you know. It is often frustrating dealing with "the mob", and the funny thing is I don't hold myself as being very special in any regard. I am simply highly curious and tend to be quite rational, I guess that is enough to be an oddity in the modern world.
I'm in my late 30′s, born in the Midwest, but I have lived in 4 different states, and several nations, which include Switzerland, Singapore, China, Japan, and Taiwan. I have visited many more. Over the years I found that most people, even those we would consider quite educated, who are quite academically accomplished are far from intellectuals. Most people simply apply their intellect to their job, after which they focus on practical concerns or entertainment. They lack innate curiosity about the world or a drive to follow-up on things that do strike their fancy.
My family is a good example, not wanting to get too much into my background, my parents died when I was young, and I grew up with my mother's family, who are quite blue collar in their sensibilities. They have never been able to understand why I would want to even visit Asia, let alone live outside the U.S. For them exotic is going to the Caribbean, and outrageous would be travelling to France. They have no interest in science at all. I suppose my generation is slowly breaking out of this mode, but despite having doctors, lawyers, and low level politicians in the family, most are far from intellectual in their pursuits. Outside my family, the most intellectually stimulating environment I have found was Washington D.C. I lived there for 5 years, during which time I was involved in a couple of organizations where I met some very interesting people, whom I still regard as fairly close friends. After leaving Washington D.C., I have mostly been surrounded by fairly educated business people, so not much intellectual depth.
This is especially true in East Asia, as the societies are so authoritarian, due to a Confucianist tradition, many people do not even know how to think for themselves about things that are not practical. It is not just the common complaint about the lack of self-initiative or creativity, that you might read on the internet, it is far deeper than that. I have met ethnic Chinese, Korean, and Japanese people (all Asian born) who have went to top universities, and might be seen as highly intelligent in the very narrow area of their occupation, but outside of this you might see them as retarded (in the classic sense). In Asia, but for Japan, there seems to be no love of learning outside of the practical purpose of money making, which is an obsession, especially among the ethnic Chinese. Hell, most people do not even read for enjoyment if the material is higher than a fashion magazine or manga. A Taiwanese woman once told me that education is so brutal and stressful for most, and then they grow and work 12 hours a day, after which no one wants to do anything but sleep, eat, and relax. A common joke in Taiwan is that people's favorite hobbies are "sleeping and eating", and like many quips, there is truth in it. I used to think this was a nouveau riche attitude, but honestly I think it is not a transient phase, it is deeply culture. East Asians are really just practical highly focused "grinders". I have met people who were different, but few. I used to be involved with a discussion group in Taiwan, and I started a sister group in Singapore, we discussed all sorts of topics from birth rates, to modern marriage trends, to religious issues, but those type of groups I found were highly unusual, and a quick scan of Meet-up, which is quite popular in Singapore can show you that most people are interested in business networking, meeting a sex partner, or self-improvement (usually how to make more money). The funny thing is, in Singapore, almost all these events are dominated by ethnic Indians. Indians are chatty, far more than the "Mongoloids". To be fair, there are groups for hiking, biking, and jogging, but they are usually lead by Western people with Asian tag-alongs.
In Asia people rarely give opinions in groups or even have strong opinions about many things, they simply look to be "told". Chinese say they are like "roaches" which is a positive expression, it means they can survive anything, and the tenacity of the people is awe inspiring at times. They can take all manners of abuse and drudgery from authority figures, while suffering in silence, which I believe is why the suicide rate is so much higher than the West. Since face is so important to people, most will not put themselves "on the line" as they never want to be seen as wrong, let alone challenging authority. Face is so critical because everyone is judging everyone all the time, there is little "privacy". The locus of moral control is generally "outside the person" because the societies are built on shame, not guilt. So people really fear being shamed, but if they think they won't get caught, I've seen people do pretty terrible things, with little remorse or self-criticism. If you ever think someone from these nations will apologize to you for something wrong they did, dont' hold your breath, the very act is a lose of face, so they will simply pretend it did not happen or top talking to you if you make an issue of it. I have seen this many times. Any criticism of a person or "the group" (which could also mean the nation/government) is seen as an attack by many, especially coming from a foreigner, and then the irrational "home team is always right" attitude kicks in, usually an illogical rant. Logical thinking is not fundamental at all, at least not for more abstract issues. Despite being "patriarchal societies" how the society functions reminds me of how junior high school girls operate. The whys and what fors are all quite complicated, but Asia is definitely not what most Americans think it is. I think if Western people really knew how fundamentally different the society is in a place like China, they would be terrified for the future, it is shocking, and takes a major adjustment for those of us who do not wish to live in an ex-pat bubble while living abroad.
Anyway, I added in the Asian part because I know you have some interest in the Far East, but my real question to you is how do you find the like-minded, off-line? I understand you live in the Pacific Northwest, are things better there or have you just found a niche. I assume blogging is not your only intellectual outlet, so are most of the people you speak with about various issues on-line? I need to figure out something, as I'm heading back to "money is life" land. Sports fans have their bars, dancers have night clubs, where do we go?
So, after all that, what's my advice? Offline I have found the Less Wrong and BIL communities to be invigorating. The primary issue that I have is that I tend not to have an "off" switch when I'm intellectua;ly engaged. I can talk about sports and other "small talk" fare on "autopilot," but when I engage cognitively I tend to get bored by a lot of discussion. The people I've met through Less Wrong and other such communities also tend not to have a genuine "off" mode, and intellectual discussion isn't about signalling or showing how smart you are, it's about getting to the heart of things. And that's hard to find. The reality is that most smart people enjoy decompressing in the evening, having a good meal and a rich beer. But the corollary is that conversation also seems to become rather anodyne, banal, and mind numbing. In contrast, a minority of us just have a difficult time genuinely unwinding, because we're always conscious of the fact that death is coming closer and closer, and we're stilled mired in ignorance.
I don't know there's some serious racist bullshit in that, my anecdotal 'evidence', the limited number of Japanese I've meet have all been just as intellectually curious as anyone I've met, but with the advantage of having had on average a slightly more rigorous education, at least as compared to some of my fellow Brits and I. :blush:
edit:
On second thoughts, that guys sounds like such a asocial tool, you should invite him onto languish, he'd fit here like a glove. :)
Yeah pretty much, mongers.
Quote from: mongers on March 07, 2013, 10:05:56 PM
I don't know there's some serious racist bullshit in that, my anecdotal 'evidence', the limited number of Japanese I've meet have all been just as intellectually curious as anyone I've met, but with the advantage of having had on average a slightly more rigorous education, at least as compared to some of my fellow Brits and I. :blush:
edit:
On second thoughts, that guys sounds like such a asocial tool, you should invite him onto languish, he'd fit here like a glove. :)
Well obviousy I don't agree with the racist language he uses, a lot of what he talks about is true, though it's impossed on the people by the culture, not biology. There is a profound lack of intellectual curiousity among many people here. There is an extreme unwillingness to go against authority even when it's the course laid out is certain disaster. The politics of Face are a serious obstacle to having meaningful relationships with westerners.
:rolleyes:
Sorry Tim your experiences of that culture are wrong.
The whole authority thing sounds like a con-job to avoid responsibility sort of like how over here we embrace the victim-hood thing.
Quote from: Valmy on March 08, 2013, 12:05:21 AM
Sorry Tim your experiences of that culture are wrong.
:D
Quote
The whole authority thing sounds like a con-job to avoid responsibility sort of like how over here we embrace the victim-hood thing.
Not sure what you mean by that. The boss will simply ignore objections/criticism in most cases, and outright not tolerate them in others. You can object and have your career damaged or maybe even lose your job or you carry on and hope the boss doesn't tank the company with his idiocy.
It rings true to me. One of my greatest frustrations living and working in Korea was the inability of people to formulate an answer to the question "why."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 09:47:18 AM
It rings true to me. One of my greatest frustrations living and working in Korea was the inability of people to formulate an answer to the question "why."
So they are the same as freshmen in the US?
he he
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 09:47:18 AM
It rings true to me. One of my greatest frustrations living and working in Korea was the inability of people to formulate an answer to the question "why."
Woo! I declare victory via appeal to ethnic authority!
There is some truth in that though it is taken to racist extremes. People really do have far more of a hive mind mentality in asia.
Quote from: Tyr on March 11, 2013, 05:38:36 AM
There is some truth in that though it is taken to racist extremes. People really do have far more of a hive mind mentality in asia.
Agree that the use of the term "hive mentality" in reference to real groups of people is racist.
Still on the first page, but wouldn't the results be different if the amount offered had the similar relative value to the Machiguenga as $100 has to Americans?
To an American, $100 is not an entirely insignificant amount, but it is definitely not a large amount, so most people would be willing to risk less than $50 for the sake of moral grandstanding. I am pretty sure if the amount to be split was $1,000,000, most Americans would also accept an amount that is significantly below the 50/50 split (e.g. I don't think many people who were offered $100,000, would be willing to "punish" the one to keep $900,000).
Edit: Ok, read further to disregard this comment.
Do these studies also test the same people over a period of time to see whether their responses to identical situations are consistent? I know researchers think hard about their methodology, but it would be funny if these sorts of groundbreaking studies actually only reveal that 48% of those tested were in a bad mood on a given day.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 01, 2013, 01:42:16 PM
Kinda blows away the thinking that some single way of doing things can be applied globally over all of humanity. Marketing people know this, and market products differently in different cultures. Regrettably, political activists will probably always cling to the fiction that their idea of how to do things can be successfully applied to every society in the same manner.
I disagree. If anything, the problem with modern political activists (especially on the left) is their cultural relativism and the abandonment of the great narratives of the 19th and the 20th century (so something exactly opposite to what you say they are "clinging" to). What this study does is that it offers a reality check, showing that we need to work harder in order to impose our values on different cultures. The history of the British Empire shows that it can be done, however.
The Germano-Celtic Man's Burden.
Quote from: Warspite on March 11, 2013, 07:38:12 AM
Do these studies also test the same people over a period of time to see whether their responses to identical situations are consistent? I know researchers think hard about their methodology, but it would be funny if these sorts of groundbreaking studies actually only reveal that 48% of those tested were in a bad mood on a given day.
So long as the 48% figure is consistent, then it wouldn't matter. The members of the 48% who were cranky on day one would feel uncranky on day 2, but would be replaced by newly cranky individuals. :smarty:
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2013, 09:38:05 AM
Quote from: Warspite on March 11, 2013, 07:38:12 AM
Do these studies also test the same people over a period of time to see whether their responses to identical situations are consistent? I know researchers think hard about their methodology, but it would be funny if these sorts of groundbreaking studies actually only reveal that 48% of those tested were in a bad mood on a given day.
So long as the 48% figure is consistent, then it wouldn't matter. The members of the 48% who were cranky on day one would feel uncranky on day 2, but would be replaced by newly cranky individuals. :smarty:
However, the crankiness could be caused in part by the methodology of the test.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 11, 2013, 09:39:50 AM
However, the crankiness could be caused in part by the methodology of the test.
Not just the methodology - all testing changes the testees to some extent.
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2013, 10:35:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 11, 2013, 09:39:50 AM
However, the crankiness could be caused in part by the methodology of the test.
Not just the methodology - all testing changes the testees to some extent.
You said 'testees', huh huh huh...
What a ball buster.
Btw, used the article here (plus some related stuff referred to in the article and the base article) in my "Cultures in Conflict" elective. It provoked quite an interesting discussion, particularly between the US students and the foreign exchange students.
Thanks for the steer, Jake. :cheers:
Quote from: grumbler on March 12, 2013, 03:18:55 PM
Btw, used the article here (plus some related stuff referred to in the article and the base article) in my "Cultures in Conflict" elective. It provoked quite an interesting discussion, particularly between the US students and the foreign exchange students.
Thanks for the steer, Jake. :cheers:
No worries :)
I assume you also used the piece Tim posted since apparently a lot of it is true in spite of the racist language; and he should know.
Racist language?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2013, 03:34:51 PM
Racist language?
I assume you're directing that question at Tim, since they're his words.
Ah.
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2013, 03:23:52 PM
I assume you also used the piece Tim posted since apparently a lot of it is true in spite of the racist language; and he should know.
Ah was that what you were upset about? It was hard to tell with just a smilie.
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2013, 03:59:29 PMAh was that what you were upset about? It was hard to tell with just a smilie.
:huh:
Why are you so angry?
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2013, 04:27:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2013, 03:59:29 PMAh was that what you were upset about? It was hard to tell with just a smilie.
:huh:
Why are you so angry?
:frusty:
Why do you keep hitting yourself?
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2013, 04:27:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 12, 2013, 03:59:29 PMAh was that what you were upset about? It was hard to tell with just a smilie.
:huh:
Why are you so angry?
You went :rolleyes: and I wasn't sure what you were rolling your eyes about. Not realy angry about it I just presumed you thought Tim's whole experience was junk or something. Remember? That like just recently happened and you just mentioned Tim's post in the post I quoted.
I thought Tim's piece was a fair bit below the usual stuff he reposts (ranging from mildly interesting to basically pointless), and even a fair bit below the content of posts that he writes himself (mostly twaddle). He seemed to acknowledge that with the "beside the racist language" part; generally if you find you have to qualify a post or statement with something like that it's usually a sign that you're about to share something dumb. As was the case. Hence the roll eyes.
:)
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2013, 04:44:11 PM
I thought Tim's piece was a fair bit below the usual stuff he reposts (ranging from mildly interesting to basically pointless), and even a fair bit below the content of posts that he writes himself (mostly twaddle). He seemed to acknowledge that with the "beside the racist language" part; generally if you find you have to qualify a post or statement with something like that it's usually a sign that you're about to share something dumb. As was the case. Hence the roll eyes.
:)
What was it he said that was dumb?
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2013, 04:51:40 PMWhat was it he said that was dumb?
It was garden variety essentialist twaddle kicked up a notch by what Tim would call "racist language". So basically the bolded part.
That and the whole "you and me are so smart, but most other people are incurious and illogical" tone was pretty eye-roll worthy even before he got into reciting facile stereotypes and pretending it was some sort of intelligent insight. That stuff is fine if you're slinging shit on an internet message board for amusement's sake, but otherwise it's pretty weak.
Yi agrees with me on this, hell all my Korean coworkers agree with me on it. When the kids ask what's the difference between Korean and American schools I tell them that Korean schools are great for teaching math and hard sciences where memorization is at a premium, but American schools are much better at teaching students to think creatively and problem solve. I've never gotten anything other than agreement on the topic.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 12, 2013, 05:36:43 PM
Yi agrees with me on this, hell all my Korean coworkers agree with me on it. When the kids ask what's the difference between Korean and American schools I tell them that Korean schools are great for teaching math and hard sciences where memorization is at a premium, but American schools are much better at teaching students to think creatively and problem solve. I've never gotten anything other than agreement on the topic.
I didn't realize you were the author of the email your posted earlier. Is that why you bolded the whole thing? In any case, if you wanted to discuss the relative merits and drawbacks of Korean vs American curricula, why didn't you mention that?
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2013, 03:23:52 PM
I assume you also used the piece Tim posted since apparently a lot of it is true in spite of the racist language; and he should know.
No, that was just an opinion piece. I was more interested in the science than the opinions. The kids are pretty good at forming their own opinions.
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2013, 05:43:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 12, 2013, 05:36:43 PM
Yi agrees with me on this, hell all my Korean coworkers agree with me on it. When the kids ask what's the difference between Korean and American schools I tell them that Korean schools are great for teaching math and hard sciences where memorization is at a premium, but American schools are much better at teaching students to think creatively and problem solve. I've never gotten anything other than agreement on the topic.
I didn't realize you were the author of the email your posted earlier. Is that why you bolded the whole thing? In any case, if you wanted to discuss the relative merits and drawbacks of Korean vs American curricula, why didn't you mention that?
The blog which posted the letter italicized the whole thing, but bolding shows up better so I went with that.
Do you think people develop like that out of nowhere? They're not born like that. Of course the schools are one of the largest factors, if not the largest, in how people think.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 12, 2013, 06:04:13 PMDo you think people develop like that out of nowhere? They're not born like that. Of course the schools are one of the largest factors, if not the largest, in how people think.
Out of curiosity, when you mentioned "racist language" what were you referring to?
Jake, I get that you didn't like what Tim had to say, but I still don't see how you can call it dumb. He has spent a decent amount of time in South Korea and I'm sure those are his honest observations. All I hear you say in response is that they fit in with supposed stereotypes. Well big whoop. Tell me how he's wrong and what insight you have on Koreans.
Looking back on my life, I would've definitely been a different person in some ways had I not left Ukraine when I was 12. I would've been more ruthless and far more corrupt. Moving to US removed the pressure to continue developing those qualities. Culture can be a vicious circle in good ways and in bad.
Still a slav.
But he's part Jew and they're apparently white these days.
Still a Slav. I have spoken.
Sorry, Guller, I tried. :(
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2013, 06:13:55 PM
Jake, I get that you didn't like what Tim had to say, but I still don't see how you can call it dumb. He has spent a decent amount of time in South Korea and I'm sure those are his honest observations. All I hear you say in response is that they fit in with supposed stereotypes. Well big whoop. Tell me how he's wrong and what insight you have on Koreans.
Seriously - I have no objection to discussing the differences (and similarities) between cultures. It's a fascinating topic. There are obvious differences between Korean and American cultures, and between the somewhat more nebulous "Western" and "East Asian" ones as well.
On the other hand, I do generally object to racism and I'm unfond of racist language in most cases. I think it's quite possible to discuss cultural differences without resorting to either of those.
Tim has acknowledged that the article contains racist language. The rolling eyes were directed at the article - especially the bolded part - and only reflected on Tim insofar as he chose to post it to begin with.
That said, I do wonder how Tim reconciles posting something which he says is true in spite of using racist language. Is it possible for Tim to describe that truth - which apparently all of his Korean colleagues and Admiral Yi (and thus Valmy) agree with him is accurate - without resorting to racist language? Or is that impossible for some reason or other, and if so what's the reason?
Since you asked :)
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2013, 06:12:16 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 12, 2013, 06:04:13 PMDo you think people develop like that out of nowhere? They're not born like that. Of course the schools are one of the largest factors, if not the largest, in how people think.
Out of curiosity, when you mentioned "racist language" what were you referring to?
He calls East Asians mongoloids. More subtley it feels like he's blaming the people rather than the culture despite his calling out the influence of Confuscian tradition.
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2013, 07:03:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2013, 06:13:55 PM
Jake, I get that you didn't like what Tim had to say, but I still don't see how you can call it dumb. He has spent a decent amount of time in South Korea and I'm sure those are his honest observations. All I hear you say in response is that they fit in with supposed stereotypes. Well big whoop. Tell me how he's wrong and what insight you have on Koreans.
Seriously - I have no objection to discussing the differences (and similarities) between cultures. It's a fascinating topic. There are obvious differences between Korean and American cultures, and between the somewhat more nebulous "Western" and "East Asian" ones as well.
On the other hand, I do generally object to racism and I'm unfond of racist language in most cases. I think it's quite possible to discuss cultural differences without resorting to either of those.
Tim has acknowledged that the article contains racist language. The rolling eyes were directed at the article - especially the bolded part - and only reflected on Tim insofar as he chose to post it to begin with.
That said, I do wonder how Tim reconciles posting something which he says is true in spite of using racist language. Is it possible for Tim to describe that truth - which apparently all of his Korean colleagues and Admiral Yi (and thus Valmy) agree with him is accurate - without resorting to racist language? Or is that impossible for some reason or other, and if so what's the reason?
Since you asked :)
That doesn't really answer my question. You just seem to be saying that the article Tim posted is completely invalidated by virtue of apparently racist language it used in some parts, and that Tim said something dumb by giving his take that the article made some valid points in spite of the racist language.
What I want to know is why you think Tim's observations were dumb.
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2013, 06:15:00 PM
Looking back on my life, I would've definitely been a different person in some ways had I not left Ukraine when I was 12. I would've been more ruthless and far more corrupt. Moving to US removed the pressure to continue developing those qualities. Culture can be a vicious circle in good ways and in bad.
Like you did in this post, you sometimes still drop your articles, so my brain starts reading them in a Russian accent. :P
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2013, 07:36:42 PMThat doesn't really answer my question. You just seem to be saying that the article Tim posted is completely invalidated by virtue of apparently racist language it used in some parts, and that Tim said something dumb by giving his take that the article made some valid points in spite of the racist language.
Tim brought racist twaddle into the discussion. That's good for a :rolleyes:
QuoteWhat I want to know is why you think Tim's observations were dumb.
I didn't call Tim's observations dumb. Which is admittedly a change of pace.
What's your stake in this? Did you find Tim's observations particularly insightful or new?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 12, 2013, 07:06:53 PMHe calls East Asians mongoloids. More subtley it feels like he's blaming the people rather than the culture despite his calling out the influence of Confuscian tradition.
How do you feel about him describing the essential nature of broad cultures as monolithic and implicitly inferior; using sweeping, facile generalizations and the occasional just-so anecdote to do so?
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2013, 10:13:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 12, 2013, 07:06:53 PMHe calls East Asians mongoloids. More subtley it feels like he's blaming the people rather than the culture despite his calling out the influence of Confuscian tradition.
How do you feel about him describing the essential nature of broad cultures as monolithic and implicitly inferior; using sweeping, facile generalizations and the occasional just-so anecdote to do so?
I specifically stated when I posted it that he overgeneralized. Although when talking about something as broad as national culture, how can you not generalize? There will be individuals in any society who don't go with the cultural flow.
Unless you're an acadmeic carrying out scientifically valid research, just so anecdotes is all people have. If we can't generalize and can't use anecdotes than the great majority of people will not be able to discuss culture at all.
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2013, 10:07:39 PM
I didn't call Tim's observations dumb. Which is admittedly a change of pace.
It appeared to me that you did.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 12, 2013, 10:28:24 PMI specifically stated when I posted it that he overgeneralized. Although when talking about something as broad as national culture, how can you not generalize? There will be individuals in any society who don't go with the cultural flow.
Personally, my view is that most cultures are quite complex and have several often contradictory flows (to use your term) that individuals relate to; rather than there being one cultural flow that people go with or against.
QuoteUnless you're an acadmeic carrying out scientifically valid research, just so anecdotes is all people have. If we can't generalize and can't use anecdotes than the great majority of people will not be able to discuss culture at all.
That is very true, and that would be a pity. Still, it's worth looking for a bit of nuance, in my opinion; it makes the discussions more interesting.
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2013, 11:35:44 PMIt appeared to me that you did.
An easy mistake to make :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2013, 11:58:48 PM
Personally, my view is that most cultures are quite complex and have several often contradictory flows (to use your term) that individuals relate to; rather than there being one cultural flow that people go with or against.
Interesting that the generalizations of the first article you posted didn't provoke the same response.
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2013, 06:15:00 PM
Looking back on my life, I would've definitely been a different person in some ways had I not left Ukraine when I was 12. I would've been more ruthless and far more corrupt. Moving to US removed the pressure to continue developing those qualities. Culture can be a vicious circle in good ways and in bad.
I am curious about your experiences.
Tell me, what have you noticed in American society?
From your post and some personal observations I get the idea that Americans would, in general terms, be weak, foolish people, who get easily offended. Not to mention obsessed with race.
As someone who is considered ruthless by Russians and Ukranians alike, I have a real hard time seeing the Russian/Ukranian population - of all classes and social tiers - as 'ruthless' in any way. If anything, I'd call everybody 'nice people who try their best' (and don't do a good job of it, but that's besides the point, nor do I care).
Incidentally, what is your Ukranian home town? Western Ukranians in particular are very soft. Softer than people from the East, who have close ties with Russia. I'm not counting Crimea in this, since it is really Russian population there.
(I won't delve much about Russia. Siberians in particular are very nice people, which means they tend to be overly naïve. And no, unlike western myths they are not impervious to cold)
Small joke: you know how I describe Horlika to Russians? "Vodka is the bottle you keep near you to wash down the taste of Horlika after you drank a small glass of it." :P
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 13, 2013, 09:03:08 AM
From your post and some personal observations I get the idea that Americans would, in general terms, be weak, foolish people, who get easily offended. Not to mention obsessed with race.
Is it just us? I find that comforting.
QuoteAnd no, unlike western myths they are not impervious to cold
I was not aware we had myths about the people of Siberia. Go figure. But to be fair this is the first conversation I have had in any form about Siberians.
Yeah, I'm so not dignifying that faux question with a response.
It's an interesting POV that weak and foolish are the antithesis of ruthless and corrupt. :lol:
I like how he chides Americans about being obsessed with race and then goes on to make several broad generalizations about Russians from different regions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2013, 09:09:58 AM
It's an interesting POV that weak and foolish are the antithesis of ruthless and corrupt. :lol:
That's actually the perception in cultures that do encourage ruthlessness and corruption, at least the ones I'm familiar with.
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2013, 09:14:32 AM
That's actually the perception in cultures that do encourage ruthlessness and corruption, at least the ones I'm familiar with.
Yeah, I get that.
Thank God I don't live in a country where cheating on your taxes is considered sexy.
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2013, 09:08:07 AM
Yeah, I'm so not dignifying that faux question with a response.
You just gave it. From your words, I now know for sure you're a western ukranian (I'd bet in or around Lviv/Lvov/Lemberg), and thus have little perception of the deep realities of the Ukranian nation.
As a result, your notion that you would be very different from what you are now are not accurate. There would be differences, but not that many.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin
I like how he chides Americans about being obsessed with race and then goes on to make several broad generalizations about Russians from different regions.
Obsession confirmed. Siberians are racially as Russian as Muscovites, so my point was about regionalism. But you cannot grasp that, as all you think about is race.
Quote from: Valmy
I was not aware we had myths about the people of Siberia. Go figure. But to be fair this is the first conversation I have had in any form about Siberians.
Many westerners - not just in America - have this idea people from Siberia spend all their time in the cold and can handle it very well.
It's not that true. ;)
I don't understand what is happening here. :(
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2013, 06:15:00 PM
Looking back on my life, I would've definitely been a different person in some ways had I not left Ukraine when I was 12. I would've been more ruthless and far more corrupt. Moving to US removed the pressure to continue developing those qualities. Culture can be a vicious circle in good ways and in bad.
Heh, the culture clash I see in my in-laws' family between the Ukranians who immigrated in the 1950s or earlier and those comming over for visits these days is pretty instructive on the primacy of culture over inherited characteristics! :lol:
It is an almost inevitable pattern: after an intital 'honeymoon' of catching up on what happened to what relation, there dawns the realization that they have absolutely nothing in common - particularly in terms of basic assumptions about such matters as ethics concerning work, sex, private property, etc.
In all of these matters, the "old immigrants" find the "native Ukranians" a huge dissapointment. I dunno how the "native Ukrainians" view the "old immigrants" - incredibly naive, "square" and judgmental, I imagine.
The 'old immigrants' are particularly unhappy because they often harbour a romantic nationalist attachment.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 13, 2013, 09:22:00 AM
Obsession confirmed. Siberians are racially as Russian as Muscovites, so my point was about regionalism. But you cannot grasp that, as all you think about is race.
Eh, I recently saw a show about living in the arctic and the Siberian hunters looked pretty Asian/Amerindian to me. But my comment wasn't about race either, but your love of stereotypes.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 12, 2013, 06:45:00 PM
Still a Slav. I have spoken.
DG, based on the shit stained evidence from the eggplants, I grant you provisional whiteness and Americanism.
Congrats. You are civilized.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 13, 2013, 09:48:22 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 12, 2013, 06:45:00 PM
Still a Slav. I have spoken.
DG, based on the shit stained evidence from the eggplants, I grant you provisional whiteness and Americanism.
Congrats. You are civilized.
:w00t: :hug:
Next up: Caligula gets nominated for coveted Kentucky colonelcy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2013, 10:04:48 AM
Next up: Caligula gets nominated for coveted Kentucky colonelcy.
NEVER
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2013, 06:40:53 AMInteresting that the generalizations of the first article you posted didn't provoke the same response.
Indeed.
You might find it worthwhile to reflect on the differences between the two articles.
I just finished lunch with the Russian and Ukrainian ambassadors, and showed them Martim's post about how he thought they viewed him. They burst into sustained laughter and the only word I could make out through their guffaws sounded like "delusional." They thought his realization that Siberians were not immune to cold especially hilarious. Apparently a lot of Portuguese share his confusion.
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2013, 11:30:07 AM
You might find it worthwhile to reflect on the differences between the two articles.
Already have.
The most obvious difference is that the 2nd makes a negative judgement about a non-Western ethnic group.