View Full Version : Are some countries doomed to high unemployment due to their genetic pool ?
I was reading in The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/10/entrepreneurship?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ambitionignited) that "many of society's ills, from economic stagnation to poor social mobility, could be solved by creating a more entrepreneurial society." The timing couldn't be better as I had been thinking about that very issue lately. Why is it that northern European countries, especially Germanic ones, have for so long had a lower unemployment rate than other countries, regardless of the economic climate ? I believe this indeed has something to do with the fact that northern European people are a particularly entrepreneurial bunch. Not only are they less afraid of taking risks, they are also more individualistic and independent than almost any other cultural group on the planet. Northern Europeans are therefore more likely to be self-employed or to start their own company.
Eight years ago I wrote about individualism vs collectivism (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/culture-shock-137/japanese-more-individualist-collectivist-4391/) and the five cultural dimensions (http://www.geert-hofstede.com/) used by IBM psychologist Geert Hofstede to compare working cultures around the globe. The two most interesting dimensions are individualism and uncertainty avoidance.
Individualism is a trait shared by ethnically Celtic and Germanic countries. For instance, North Italy (Celtic) is very individualistic, while South Italy (Greek) is far more collectivist. All non-European cultures are strongly collectivist. Collectivist-minded people like to feel part of a group and are much more likely to become employees or civil servants. That is why in a country like Japan (Asian therefore collectivist), as developed as it is, people will almost always choose to work for a company (the bigger the better) rather than be self-employed. Even professionals like doctors, lawyers and architects prefer to work in shared offices or firms than have their own office as they would in northern Europe.
Uncertainty avoidance is a slightly more difficult concept to grasp. People with a high uncertainty avoidance will take all the measures they can to limit risks and have things under control at all time, trying to foresee any eventuality. They would plan a trip well in advance, booking their hotels ahead and knowing exactly where they would be going. Ideally they prefer to travel in organised tours rather than by themselves. It's safer and more comforting. Individuals with a low uncertainty avoidance will take a last minute flight without knowing exactly where they would be going and adjusting their plans on the spot.
Even legal systems reflect the level of uncertainty avoidance. Roman and Napoleonic legal system (high uncertainty avoidance) trying to codify every possible infringement of the law. In contrast, English common law is much more compact and flexible, privileging a case-by-case approach at the judge's discretion.
Like for collectivism, the "default" (or ancestral) human nature is a high uncertainty avoidance. According to Hofstede's scores (http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php), only the Scandinavians, Brits, Irish, Chinese and Vietnamese have a low uncertainty avoidance (the lowest being the Danes). There is surely a genetic factor too, since neighbouring populations (the Dutch, Finns, Southeast Asians) have an average score, and all other nationalities have a high score (even the Germans, who are more Celtic or Slavic in that regard).
When I was a student, I backpacked for a few months around Australia, and I was quite baffled by the fact that out of the hundreds of other backpackers I met, about 40% were English (not British as I only met one Scot and no Welsh), 30% were Dutch (but not a single Fleming), 20% were Scandinavian (mostly Danish), and the remaining 10% covered all other nationalities (mostly Japanese, German, Irish and French with a few occasional American, Canadian). Wherever you go around the world, you will always meet English and Dutch people. They have travel in their blood. The more out-of-the-beaten-track and adventurous the destination, the higher their proportion to other nationalities. I talk from experience, having myself travelled to about 50 countries.
I haven't met a single southern European backpacker in Australia and very few in India or Southeast Asia. I think that tells a lot about the cultural difference between northern and southern Europe. Interestingly, England and the Netherlands have the lowest combined scores for uncertainty avoidance and collectivism. In other words, English and Dutch people are individualistic, independent risk-takers. It is no surprise that they are so entrepreneurial too, and that they spawned vast colonial empires developed almost solely by private entrepreneurs (East & West India Companies) as opposed to state-sponsored expeditions like in the case of France, Spain, Germany or Japan.
Why do you think it is that English colonies fared so well ? Because more people migrated there to populate them ? Yes, but why ? British people having a low uncertainty avoidance, more individualistic and entrepreneurial, they were less afraid of leaving everything behind and migrate to the new colonies to start a new life. They were more successful at it too. In contrast, the Spaniards conquered the Americas in search for gold, silver and precious stones. They were motivated by greed, then usually came back to Spain to spend the fortune they had acquired. Others just went to convert the pagans (religious zeal). The most ethnically European former Spanish colonies today are Uruguay and Argentina, which both have big non-Iberian communities (French, Italian, German), mostly from 20th century immigration (far less adventurous than in past centuries). French colonies were almost only settled by the King's soldiers to protect the state's interests, but didn't attract a lot of immigrants. English colonies were not commissioned by the state, by individual enterprises, and each colony was completely independent from the next.
The Dutch colonisation of South Africa is the one rare other example of a major European colony founded by a group of people just leaving their homeland of their own will to create a new colony of their own without seeking fortune or thinking of extending their country's dominion. Actually the Dutch, Danes and Swedes all had minor colonies in North America that were all later absorbed by the mass of British migrants. This included New Amsterdam (now called New York), and what would become the states of New Jersey and Delaware (New Sweden).
I am convinced that entrepreneurialism, like individualism and uncertainty avoidance, is deeply rooted is one's genes. One cannot choose if he/she is individualistic or not, no more than he/she can choose if he is a risk-taker or not. The ugly truth behind this is that countries where the gene pool has a high percentage of entrepreneur-minded, independent ("self-employed-minded") people will naturally have a lower unemployment in equal circumstances compared to a country of collectivist-minded people with a high fear of risk. This is undoubtedly why northern European countries as well as Canada and Australia, founded mostly by risk-taking entrepreneurs from northern Europe, will always cope better in the adversity than southern European countries (or most non-Western countries). When the economy is bad, employees and civil servants get fired and less people are hired to replace those who retire. You can't lose your job if you are self-employed. You don't have to worry about being hired if you start own your business.
Instead of waiting for a company or the government to recruit them, the 50% of unemployed Spanish youths should try doing something useful and start their own businesses, instead of blaming society or the economy. Unless they just can't because their genes is preventing them, riddling them with fear. But who is to blame then ?
I agree. I've been always sensing that there is a strong genetic component how countries are governed, how people behave or how orderly institutions and businesses function in different countries.
I have an observation about collectivism. It looks like it has a duel or split personality. Collectivism of southern countries is strong on personal level. People bond strongly, let's say very emotionally with people that they know, like family, villages, work places/ workers unions. They also have strong national identity, but it stops at identity. They mistrust governments, they don't want to pay taxes, and underground economy is rampant. On this level they strongly divide big social construct, like country or big business, between they and we. "We don't want to share with them, they always cheat and use us". But when family and friends come for a visit southern hospitality is unsurpassed.
North Europe is different in this regard. People are more willing to pay taxes, people care more about common property, people are more willing to share wealth with all national we. North collectivism goes easily international giving to the whole world. On other hand, when guest and family come for a visit, you better bring your own food, lol.
There was a great example of collectivism in Germany during this recession. When most businesses in the world were rushing to cut jobs, Germany's businesses, instead of letting unfortunate people go, decided to keep all workforce and cut everybody's working hours and salaries. That's collective sacrifice at it's best, and there wasn't much resistance from the work force to do so. It's all we, it was all for us.
So, who is more collective, south or north? I guess we need to create sub groups for collectivism.
I have an observation about collectivism. It looks like it has a duel or split personality. Collectivism of southern countries is strong on personal level. People bond strongly, let's say very emotionally with people that they know, like family, villages, work places/ workers unions. They also have strong national identity, but it stops at identity. They mistrust governments, they don't want to pay taxes, and underground economy is rampant. On this level they strongly divide big social construct, like country or big business, between they and we. "We don't want to share with them, they always cheat and use us". But when family and friends come for a visit southern hospitality is unsurpassed.
That's a very good observation. East Asian countries differ from Southern Europe in this regard. I think this has to do with two other factors in addition to collectivism, namely clannishness and egalitarianism.
Southern European, as well as Atlantic Celtic cultures like the Irish and the Scots, are clannish, meaning that they are collectivist at a family or village level, but not so much at a higher level (regional or national). They trust people they know, people close to them, but distrust big corporations and governments. That is why the current Indignant movement has its roots in Southern Europe and is not likely to be very popular in egalitarian Nordic countries. It is essentially fuelled by clans (families, groups of friends) antagonising the government, seen as the enemy, or at least a cold and distant entity rather than the representative of the people's interests. In Sweden anybody can visit the Prime Minister's office and check his/her mails. Try that in a Latin country, where people like Berlusconi or Sarkozy behave more like distant monarchs than accessible fellow citizens.
Scandinavians and East Asians seem to care much more about their country's image and general well-being of their society as a whole, as opposed to that of their immediate entourage. This may be because they are more egalitarian people (although the opposite of egalitarianism is elitism, not clannishness). Let's just say that they have a wider sense of community, one that is not based on personal acquaintances or blood relatedness. That's why in times of economic hardship (like now), the Japanese will agree to cut their salaries in a spirit of solidarity, so that companies don't have to lay off employees.
The "default" ancestral condition of humanity is clannishness, and Indo-Europeans were a perfect example of it. I expect the gene for "societal altruism" (I had to coin a word for it, as I couldn't think of an opposite of clannishness) to have appeared among Mongoloid people, as it is most common among Siberians and in East Asians. The Finns and Scandinavians may have inherited it from their partial Siberian ancestry.
There was a great example of collectivism in Germany during this recession. When most businesses in the world were rushing to cut jobs, Germany's businesses, instead of letting unfortunate people go, decided to keep all workforce and cut everybody's working hours and salaries. That's collective sacrifice at it's best, and there wasn't much resistance from the work force to do so. It's all we, it was all for us.
So, who is more collective, south or north? I guess we need to create sub groups for collectivism.
Germany is an interesting case because, based on Hofstede's scores (http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php), it is less individualistic (score of 67) than all other Germanic countries (Netherlands=80, Denmark=74, Sweden=71), but also than Ireland (=70), Britain(=89), Belgium (=75), France (=71) or North Italy (=76). Austria (score=55) is even more collectivist, almost as much as Spain (=51), but not as much as Portugal (=27) and Greece (=35). It's probably the Slavic influence in Germany and Austria. Slavic countries have intermediary scores, the most collectivist being Russia (score=39), and the most individualistic being Poland (=60 ; probable Scandinavian and German influence).
I have created an entrepreneurialism index by subtracting Geert Hostede's uncertainty avoidances score from the individualism score. Here is why :
- A high individualism score basically means that there is a will to do things on one's own. This increases a person's chance of becoming self-employed or start up a new business.
- Uncertainty avoidance is essentially "fear of the unknown" or "fear of taking risks", a barrier that prevent a person from undertaking something new, embarking on an unknown path.
The entrepreneur spirit is born out of high individualism and low uncertainty avoidance.
Here is how the entrepreneurialism score is calculated. The Dutch have an individualism score of 80 and an uncertainty avoidance of 53. => 80 - 53 = 27. The score is positive, so Dutch people can be deemed to be entrepreneurial. If it was negative, the fear of risk would win over the personal desire to launch one's own business.
Here is the ranking:
Britain = +54
Denmark = +51
Australia = +49
USA = +45
Sweden = +42
Ireland = +35
Canada = +32
New Zealand = +30
Netherlands = +27
Norway = +19
Singapore = +18
South Africa = +16
Switzerland = +10
Finland = +4
Germany = +2
(North) Italy = +1
Estonia = 0
Hungary = -2
Hong Kong = -4
China/Malaysia = -10
France/Austria = -15
Czech Republic = -16
Belgium = -19
Israel = -27
Arab World = -30
Poland = -33
Brazil = -38
Spain = -39
Argentina = -40
Thailand = -44
Turkey = -48
Mexico = -52
Russia = -56
Romania = -60
Chile = -63
Portugal/Greece = -77
We see that the only countries with clear positive scores are North European or former British colonies. The only exception is Switzerland.
Within Europe, Portugal and Greece have the lowest scores, and are the most geographically distant from the epicentre of the top scorers (historically adjusted to Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, as a good part of British genes come from Denmark and the Netherlands anyway).
I think the issue of entrepreneurial culture is interesting.
I created a thread on it here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26375-Is-Your-Country-Entrepreneurial)
"Recently British PM David Cameron said the government had no new tricks up its sleeve for creating jobs and growth and the only way out for the UK economy was the role of 'entrepreneurs'. article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/8134308/David-Cameron-backs-entrepreneurs-as-self-employment-rises.html)
I have read that economies only emerge from recessions because of the growth created by new business start-ups. If this is true then the 'go-getter' culture within a country would play an essential part of it's economic future.
Do you think your country has a healthy 'entrepreneurial' culture?:thinking:"
I don't think its a issue genetic issue but one of cultural attitudes.
Southern European, as well as Atlantic Celtic cultures like the Irish and the Scots, are clannish, meaning that they are collectivist at a family or village level, but not so much at a higher level (regional or national). They trust people they know, people close to them, but distrust big corporations and governments. That is why the current Indignant movement has its roots in Southern Europe and is not likely to be very popular in egalitarian Nordic countries. It is essentially fuelled by clans (families, groups of friends) antagonising the government, seen as the enemy, or at least a cold and distant entity rather than the representative of the people's interests.
If Sweden had 20% unemployment and 50% youth unemployment I'm sure you'd see very similar behaviour to Spanish youths. Suggesting that these are genetic traits is very controversial. Are you suggesting that the Euro cannot work because the Southern Europeans are genetically inferior to Northern Europeans if looked at from a purely economic perspective? That they cannot achieve higher economic performance due to their behaviour which is dictated by their genes.
Anton, Bear's den
14-10-11, 12:46
Collectivist country or not it's a matter of climate. You can be super individualistic in a huge frosty country, but that will not help you to survive, rather the opposite. The mentality of people is formed from the natural environment, geographic location, the amount of available resources, hardly it depend from genes. In Japan developed a collectivist mentality because there is a lack of resources combined with overcrowding. Russia more collectivist because here historically difficult to survive in the harsh natural conditions, with cold winters and short summers.
Collectivist country or not it's a matter of climate. You can be super individualistic in a huge frosty country, but that will not help you to survive, rather the opposite. The mentality of people is formed from the natural environment, geographic location, the amount of available resources, hardly it depend from genes. In Japan developed a collectivist mentality because there is a lack of resources combined with overcrowding. Russia more collectivist because here historically difficult to survive in the harsh natural conditions, with cold winters and short summers.
I don't think the climate argument is credible, look at Canada:
GDP per capita 13th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita)
Climate of Canada (http://www.studycanada.ca/english/climate.htm)
Contrast that with the GDP of American states and there is no pattern linked with climate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP
Anton, Bear's den
14-10-11, 14:00
I don't think the climate argument is credible, look at Canada:
GDP per capita 13th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita)
Climate of Canada (http://www.studycanada.ca/english/climate.htm)
[/URL]
(http://www.studycanada.ca/english/climate.htm)
Contrast that with the GDP of American states and there is no pattern linked with climate.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP
75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the Canadian/US border,it's pretty warm :good_job: like Russia's southern regions
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percent_of_Canadians_live_with_in_100_feet_of _the_south_border
But anyway, I did not mean that collectivism = poor & and big unemployment.
Bad when you live in too cold natural conditions as well as in too warm. Compare Canada with Mexico or Libya. USA located in very good climatic zones. In Northern Europe northern latitudes are compensated by Gulf Stream & large amounts of water (climate is not continental like in Russia, without strong temperature fluctuations).
I think the issue of entrepreneurial culture is interesting.
I created a thread on it here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26375-Is-Your-Country-Entrepreneurial)
[I]
I didn't see it. Glad to see you are interested in the same issue.
I don't think its a issue genetic issue but one of cultural attitudes.
Many character traits are genetic, and individualism is certainly one of the most genetic of them all. Not everybody in a same country, or even a same family inherits the same alleles though, which is why some people will always be more individualistic than others even with a common shared ancestry.
It is the same for uncertainty avoidance. I noticed it very well in my own family. I personally have a much lower uncertainty avoidance than the Belgian average. When I was travelling around the age of 20, I always wondered why I never met other Belgians backpacking around the world. When I came back home, I shared my experiences with my family and friends, and most were amazed that I could just leave like that without an itinerary, not even knowing which country I would be visiting in the coming months, let alone knowing in which city I was going to end up a few days ahead. They, like typical Belgians, like everything to be planned in advance. They are too scared of the unknown. That's high uncertainty avoidance. I inherited my low uncertainty avoidance from my mother, who got it from her father, who got it from his mother... I have a large extended family, and managed to trace back exactly who had "adventurous genes" and who hadn't. My father's side of the family are extremely sedentary and have a very high uncertainty avoidance (they would take an umbrella with them on a perfectly sunny day just in case). On my mother side, a few of my cousins are adventurous like me, but most aren't. Those who are have at least one parent that is more adventurous too. By analysing everybody's character on the family tree for e few generations, I noticed that there was a clear inheritance pattern.
If Sweden had 20% unemployment and 50% youth unemployment I'm sure you'd see very similar behaviour to Spanish youths
That's what you say, but according to me not. Unemployment has sky-rocketed in Ireland, but the Irish reaction to that has been to move abroad to seek work (as they did in past centuries too), not to protest uselessly in the streets hoping for the "nanny state" to take care of them.
Suggesting that these are genetic traits is very controversial. Are you suggesting that the Euro cannot work because the Southern Europeans are genetically inferior to Northern Europeans if looked at from a purely economic perspective? That they cannot achieve higher economic performance due to their behaviour which is dictated by their genes.
It's not about superiority or inferiority. I am not judging, just observing differences. I know it can sound controversial, but who said that the world was fair ? Evolution is about better adapted genes replacing the others over time. What's important to keep in mind is that the same gene is not always the best adapted in all situations. I strongly recommend that you read The Selfish Gene (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0199291152?ie=UTF8&tag=eupedia-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=0199291152) by Richard Dawkins if you haven't.
Since the Middle Ages it seems that European society has favoured people with more entrepreneurial genes in them. The evolution of the population speaks for itself. As I explained last week (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26112-How-many-samples-are-statistically-significant&p=383063&viewfull=1#post383063) :
In 1350, France had a population of 20 million, only three times less than now. If we subtract all the people with foreign surnames in France (immigration of the last few centuries), we see that the French population has only grown 2.5 folds in the last 750 years, which is very little. In comparison, in 1350 Britain had a population of roughly 4 million (3m in England), Poland 2 million and Russia 8 million. These countries' populations have grown approximately 15 to 20 folds. Italy had 10 million and Spain 7 million - each experienced about a 6 fold increase.
If you include emigration, the population of British and Irish descent globally approximates 200 million (including 60m in Europe, 20m in Australia and NZ, 20m in Canada, and 100m in the USA). That is a 40-fold growth from the 5 million British and Irish in 1340.
Including people of mixed French descent in the US and Canada or other European countries, the French population has increased at best 5-fold during the same period - an amazing difference.
Greece had about 3 million inhabitants in the 14th century. It now has 10 million + 7 million people with Greek ancestry around the world. That's less than a 6-fold increase.
It is estimated that there are about 60 million of Italian descent outside Italy nowadays. So that would be a 12-fold increase in 750 years, but Italy had the biggest diaspora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_diaspora) of any country in contemporary times.
Germany and Scandinavia combined had an estimated 11.5m inhabitants in 1340. Now they exceed 100 million. Over 50 million Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States) claim to be mostly of German or Scandinavian descent today. Add about 20 million more for the rest of Europe, Canada, Australia, South America... That's about 170 million, roughly a 15-fold increase since 1340.
The Netherlands had barely 1 million inhabitants in the 14th century. There are now 16m Dutch people + at least 10 million people of Dutch descent in the USA and South Africa. That's a minimum a 26-fold increase, but could be 30-fold if the population was only 800,000 in 1340.
The stats are based on estimations and not very accurate, I admit, but it gives a pretty good idea that the proportion of Northern Europeans to Southern Europeans increased considerably over time.
In summary, the population growth since the 14th century has been (roughly) :
- 40x for Britain and Ireland
- 25-30x for the Netherlands
- 15x for Germany and Scandinavia
- 12x for Italy
- 6x for Greece
- 5x for France
I can't calculate this for Spain and Portugal as the population of the colonies is too mixed with Native Americans and Africans. Then Latin America experienced a tremendous population boom thanks to the agricultural and industrial revolution from the early 20th century onwards, and is still growing fast. Brazil grew from 10m in 1872, and is now nearing 200 million. This growth is faster that anything Europe experienced any time in its history, even adjusting for the population living in the colonies before their independence. A similar phenomenon is happening in other developing countries especially in South Asia and Africa.
Collectivist country or not it's a matter of climate. You can be super individualistic in a huge frosty country, but that will not help you to survive, rather the opposite. The mentality of people is formed from the natural environment, geographic location, the amount of available resources, hardly it depend from genes. In Japan developed a collectivist mentality because there is a lack of resources combined with overcrowding. Russia more collectivist because here historically difficult to survive in the harsh natural conditions, with cold winters and short summers.
I think you confuse individualism and loner behaviour. Most cadres and managers in big corporations are very individualistic people. That doesn't prevent them for working with a lot of people. In fact, Scandinavians are excellent team workers, yet very individualistic in their opinions, choices, behaviour...
Anton, Bear's den
14-10-11, 15:58
I think you confuse individualism and loner behaviour. Most cadres and managers in big corporations are very individualistic people. That doesn't prevent them for working with a lot of people. In fact, Scandinavians are excellent team workers, yet very individualistic in their opinions, choices, behaviour...
Scandinavians just mixture of individualism and communalism. Pretty cold climate combined with easy access to the ice-free seas and easy access to the neighbors, therefore, they could always get the right products, resources, through trade or robbery. They always could exchange herring on wheat or something like that. Meanwhile in Siberian tundra is possible to trade only with bears.
In modern world that separation on individualism and communalism is decreases because the development of scientific progress. Russia right now much more individualistic than 100 years ago because no need to have a community for personal survival anymore. Today everybody can be individualistic except overpopulated countries with lack of resources.
I agree with both Edao and Anton and don't think it can be genetic, rather something that has developed into a cultural mentality which was bought on by climatic conditions. In warmer climates there was simply no great need to work nearly as hard or for as long hours to produce enough to survive. Heat is also a big factor, it is simply physically impossible to work long hours in extreme heat.
The genetic theory also does not explain why the millions of southern European immigrants in places like Australia or USA have done, financially, very well for themselves. Surely if it was genetic the immigrants would be no better off now than when they left Europe?
You are correct Maciamo regarding the backpackers. Greeks (for example) travel a lot but there is nearly always family visits involved, no matter where in the world, and if a trip is simply a tourist thing they would always stay in hotels. In my experience northern Europeans are holidaying mostly in search of the sun but southern Europeans have that most of the time anyway so their reasons for travel will always differ.
Having lived in Australia, one of the highest on the list, and Greece, the lowest lol, I would still prefer Greece over Australia. Sure in Australia people are comparatively well off, but work is ALL there is.
I agree with both Edao and Anton and don't think it can be genetic, rather something that has developed into a cultural mentality which was bought on by climatic conditions. In warmer climates there was simply no great need to work nearly as hard or for as long hours to produce enough to survive. Heat is also a big factor, it is simply physically impossible to work long hours in extreme heat.
Individualism and entrepreneurialism has nothing to do with how hard or how many hours one work. I am not talking about productivity here. The most productive countries (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?24193-Real-productivity-of-European-countries) in the world are France and Belgium, two countries that scored negatively in the entrepreneurialism index.
If there wasn't a genetic factor, how comes that former British colonies, settled mostly by northern Europeans, are almost as individualistic and entrepreneurial as Britain, whatever the climate ? Be it in hot places like Florida, Texas, Arizona, California or Australia, or very cold ones like Canada, it doesn't seem to affect people's behaviour, even hundreds of years after leaving the mother land. You should know, you are Australian.
Having lived in Australia, one of the highest on the list, and Greece, the lowest lol, I would still prefer Greece over Australia. Sure in Australia people are comparatively well off, but work is ALL there is.
Thanks for sharing your personal preferences on which country to live, but this has nothing to do with the topic. It's a well-known fact that Mediterranean Europe is one of the best places to live in the world if you are retired or have plenty of money and don't need to work, or just prefer a more relaxed pace of life. The French Riviera, Italy and the Greek islands are all favourite hangouts for the the Jet Set.
If Sweden had 20% unemployment and 50% youth unemployment I'm sure you'd see very similar behaviour to Spanish youths. Suggesting that these are genetic traits is very controversial. Are you suggesting that the Euro cannot work because the Southern Europeans are genetically inferior to Northern Europeans if looked at from a purely economic perspective? That they cannot achieve higher economic performance due to their behaviour which is dictated by their genes.
well, as far as I know Spain has a higher human development than countries like Austria, Luxembourg or UK. When it comes to per-capita, which is something I don't like because it's not realistic, you have Andorra higher than most european countries.
I think you confuse individualism and loner behaviour. Most cadres and managers in big corporations are very individualistic people. That doesn't prevent them for working with a lot of people. In fact, Scandinavians are excellent team workers, yet very individualistic in their opinions, choices, behaviour...
Maciamo, this is a very interesting statement, but I don't understand it quite.
According to Wikipedia, collectivism is
"... any philosophic, political, economic or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence
of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals.
Collectivists usually focus on community, society, or nation."
But Isn't the most striking feature of a loner his lack of interdependence?
His contributions to society are minimal, and in turn he does not
benefit much from society. Thus interdependence is minimized, right?
Thus according to wikipedia, loner behaviour would be very much individualistic.
On the other hand, someone who "individualistically" makes decisions how
to succeed or fit in society, state or group is very interdependent, because he
either needs to interact strongly in order to manipulate the society he wants to
succeed in, or he needs to follow the society norms in order to fit it. Both ways
are interdependecies and usually not separable. If you are in a group, you
immediately give and take somehow --> collectivism.
Isn't he a collectivist then? I don't understand why team work is not
considered as collectivism.
Sorry for so many questions, but most of that was also meant as food
for this thread in general.
If there wasn't a genetic factor, how comes that former British colonies, settled mostly by northern Europeans, are almost as individualistic and entrepreneurial as Britain, whatever the climate ? Be it in hot places like Florida, Texas, Arizona, California or Australia, or very cold ones like Canada, it doesn't seem to affect people's behaviour, even hundreds of years after leaving the mother land. You should know, you are Australian.
Yes I do know and it has nothing to do with gentics, and more to do with the old colonial superiority mentality and the stubborn belief that British or Northern European ways are better than that of indigenous people. This attitude still exists. Ever hear the term "gone native"? It was derogatory in the colonies and used for those who were perceived to have betrayed their class or race and chose to live more in accordance with their new enviroment.
But you didn't answer my question. If it is gentic how come southern European immigrants do so well in their adopted countries? In fact, entrepreneurially speaking many immigrants actually do better than those descended from British or northern European stock.
Thanks for sharing your personal preferences on which country to live, but this has nothing to do with the topic. It's a well-known fact that Mediterranean Europe is one of the best places to live in the world if you are retired or have plenty of money and don't need to work, or just prefer a more relaxed pace of life. The French Riviera, Italy and the Greek islands are all favourite hangouts for the the Jet Set.
Eh? What are you implying?
well, as far as I know Spain has a higher human development than countries like Austria, Luxembourg or UK. When it comes to per-capita, which is something I don't like because it's not realistic, you have Andorra higher than most european countries.
In this topic I am linking entrepreneurialism to the employment level. Many readers seem to confuse (un)employment for other things that are completely different (quality of life, development index, productivity, or whatever). If anything, Spain is a good example that one country can have a high development index despite high unemployment. France and Belgium are examples of high unemployment countries with high productivity. Actually, productivity tend to be invertly proportional to the employment rate (watch out that the employment rate is not the opposite of the unemployment rate (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?24192-Employment-vs-unemployment-rates-in-the-EU) !).
Maciamo, this is a very interesting statement, but I don't understand it quite.
According to Wikipedia, collectivism is
"... any philosophic, political, economic or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence
of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals.
Collectivists usually focus on community, society, or nation."
The most common problem in cultural studies is always one of definition. I used Geert Hofstede's definition (http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_united_kingdom.shtml) of individualism and collectivism here :
"Individualism (IDV) on the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, that is the degree to which individuals are inte-grated into groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The word 'collectivism' in this sense has no political meaning: it refers to the group, not to the state. Again, the issue addressed by this dimension is an extremely fundamental one, regarding all societies in the world."
But Isn't the most striking feature of a loner his lack of interdependence?
His contributions to society are minimal, and in turn he does not
benefit much from society. Thus interdependence is minimized, right?
Thus according to wikipedia, loner behaviour would be very much individualistic.
A loner is obviously individualistic, but not all individualistic people are loners ! Individualism is not as much about interacting with others as a general state of mind. In the thread How individualistic are you ? (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?8313-How-individualistic-are-you), I identified 8 categories of individualism :
Family
Living place
Work
Hobbies
Travel
In an international group
Society
Way of thinking
You can of course add other categories or refine these ones in subgroups. For example, hobbies can include a sports subcategory. If you prefer to play team sports, you are more of a collectivist.If you prefer facing an opponent on your own, like in martial arts, athleticism, racket sports or bicycle/car racing, you are more of an individualist.
If you are a family person, always present at family gatherings and events, you are a "familial collectivist". If you never meet your relatives because you prefer being on your own or spend more time for your hobbies, work or whatever, you are a "familial individualist".
Do you like living on your own, or you just can't stand it because you need company all the time ?
If you like travelling in organised tours, or with family or friends, you are a collectivist traveller. If you can't stand being with others because you can't decide where and when you go somewhere, what you want to visit, at what pace, and so on, then you are an individualistic traveller (which doesn't prevent you from socialising with other travellers on the way, for example at a youth hostel or guest house after a day of sightseeing).
In an international group, do you naturally seek the company of your fellow citizens (because you feel part of the same group), or do you prefer to mingle with people of other countries (the more individualistic approach, not tied to one collectivity) ?
In society, do you usually follow trends (fashion, latest gadgets, gossips, local events, recent societal issues, etc.) or are you constantly focused on your own interests without caring about what others do ?
Are you easily influenced by what other people think ? Do you generally make decisions on your own or do you ask other people's opinions first ? If you were convinced that something was right but others told you you were wrong, would you listen to them or stick with your own reasoning ?
Try to analyse your personal preferences for each category, make the total, and you will know if you are more individualistic or collectivist. Personally I am very individualistic for almost everything (although not exactly a loner as I interact with a lot of people everyday, and not just online).
After explaining what is individualism, I hope everybody will understand that it has nothing to do with superiority. There are individualistic and collectivist characters, and each have their merits. However, I have often noticed that very collectivist-minded people tend to look down on very individualistic people and vice versa. It is in human nature to favour people and behaviours that are similar to our own, and criticise or condemn those that diverge.
But you didn't answer my question. If it is gentic how come southern European immigrants do so well in their adopted countries? In fact, entrepreneurially speaking many immigrants actually do better than those descended from British or northern European stock.
About 10% of the population of Wallonia (the French-speaking part of Belgium) is of South Italian descent (including those who are only half Italian in the 2nd and 3rd generation of immigrants). Most of them came to work in coal mines from the 1920's to the 1960's, but their children and grandchildren are now perfectly adapted. Many did open Italian restaurants (because it's an obvious thing to do) and a few even succeeded in politics (like Elio di Rupo who became the minister-president of Wallonia). But the majority still suffers from much higher unemployment than the rest of the population, and very few Belgian start-ups are founded by the descendants of Italian immigrants. Yet they are far better adapted socially than Moroccan immigrants, for instance, so it is not an integration problem.
I don't have the data for the proportion of self-employed people and entrepreneurs of South Italian or Greek descent in North America or Australia, but I find it hard to believe that it is higher than for people of northern European descent.
Many Italian Americans are doing very well financially, but if you check the list of famous Italian Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italian_Americans), you'll see that it is mostly in the arts, entertainment (including Hollywood), academics and politics that they succeeded the most. Out of hundreds of people listed (hundreds only for actors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italian_American_actors) and entertainers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italian_American_entertainers) alone), there are only 15 entrepreneurs, and the only company I know among those they founded is Tropicana (the juices). The list also doesn't separate North and South Italians, which are very different genetically.
Most famous American, Canadian or Australian companies were founded by people with British or Germanic-sounding names (including Ashkenazi Jews for that matter). Those founded by people of southern European (including French) descent are the exception rather than the rule.
The most common problem in cultural studies is always one of definition. I used Geert Hofstede's definition of individualism and collectivism here :
"Individualism (IDV) on the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, that is the degree to which individuals are inte-grated into groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The word 'collectivism' in this sense has no political meaning: it refers to the group, not to the state. Again, the issue addressed by this dimension is an extremely fundamental one, regarding all societies in the world."
Thanks, the definition is indeed my problem here. According to Hofstede:
- individualism: loose ties/interactions between individuals
- collectivism: strong ties/interactions between individuals
My own huble definition:
- individualism: loose or sparse ties/interactions between individuals
- collectivism: strong or frequent ties/interactions between individuals
Your refining approach by different categories is also good.
But I don't like Hofested's definition because the terms "loose" and "strong" in our case
in this thread rather correspond to "dynamic" and "static", resp. Consequently the north-west
european peoples tend to be just more socially mobile or dynamic (risk taking), but this is
not exactly individualism in my definition, just social entrepreneursship. They can make
individual actions or decisions for a collectivist goal (socialize). According to Hofstede this
is indeed fully individualistic as you say, because interactions are disrupted. According
to my definition it is only partially individualistic because the interactions are in fact
disrupted for the sake of new interactions. This fits well to the free-market
capitalism with its is high social mobility/dynamic, but by no means lack of social
ties.
On the other hand, when I look at societies with feudalistic traditions like rural
balkans, here dominate static relationsships: clan, family, village, tradition, land.
Also the mafia in south italy and albania. This corresponds to more risk-avoidance
or change-avoidance but not necessarily to more collectivism. They are also partially
individualistic because they stick to their individually accustomed interactions (an
individually influenced collective) to them and avoid new interactions
which are not yet individual to them. I mean, an individual can be member of a collective,
but if this collective is individually accustomed (family), this individual is both
individualist and collectivist at the same time, according to my definition. But
according to Hofested's definition, it is not possible to decide how much individualistic
or collectivistic this person would be.
An Example:
I observed a remarkable individual pride in south european men (Greeks, Turks) compared to
northern europeans (e.g. Germans). They are prouder of their individual heritage (clannishness?),
in contrast to North-westeners who are keen to abandon their individual family as soon as possible
in favour of new peers (mind the teenagers :laughing: ). This corresponds well to the stronger
obedience of north-europeans to their state and to anonymous people whom they
can not individually control or know (collectivistic behaviour?). OTH, I found that many
south-europeans are reluctant to join a group before they are convinced that the group will
respect them as an individual first (individualistic?). They demand personal respect
beforehand (mind the vendetta, or spaniards demonstrating for government support :laughing: ).
The north europeans in turn often desperately try to be a group member, hoping that they will be
respected one day (collectivistic?). A southerner would rather blame the collective for his
individual misforune (collectivistic or individualistic?). This actually indicates that in the
north-euro case the individual is even more pressed to serve society than in the south.
For me that's collectivism. Depending on which level you look at, it can be more-or-less
both individualistic or collectivistic.
I wonder if the low social mobility in certain southern regions has to do with the
longer history of farming. Land is static, passive and safe, but money is dynamic,
active and risky (as hunting and gathering?). There is also currently a strong difference
between rural and urban societies in the balkans, for instance in serbia.
- I want to make clear, that the above is an exaggerated picture! South and north
europenas are not remotely that extremely different.
- Risk handling more directly explains economic situations. An entrepreneur is
always a risk taker, no matter if collectivist or individualist.
I hope my opinion has become more clear.
Hi ElHorsto. I like your analysis, and find collectivism of North versus South somewhat different in nature too. I just think that none of us here was able accurately pinpoint the difference yet. Personally I'm looking for a simpler explanation, according to my motto "beauty in simplicity".
Mzungu mchagga
15-10-11, 19:51
Thanks, the definition is indeed my problem here. According to Hofstede:
- individualism: loose ties/interactions between individuals
- collectivism: strong ties/interactions between individuals
My own huble definition:
- individualism: loose or sparse ties/interactions between individuals
- collectivism: strong or frequent ties/interactions between individuals
Your refining approach by different categories is also good.
But I don't like Hofested's definition because the terms "loose" and "strong" in our case
in this thread rather correspond to "dynamic" and "static", resp. Consequently the north-west
european peoples tend to be just more socially mobile or dynamic (risk taking), but this is
not exactly individualism in my definition, just social entrepreneursship. They can make
individual actions or decisions for a collectivist goal (socialize). According to Hofstede this
is indeed fully individualistic as you say, because interactions are disrupted. According
to my definition it is only partially individualistic because the interactions are in fact
disrupted for the sake of new interactions. This fits well to the free-market
capitalism with its is high social mobility/dynamic, but by no means lack of social
ties.
On the other hand, when I look at societies with feudalistic traditions like rural
balkans, here dominate static relationsships: clan, family, village, tradition, land.
Also the mafia in south italy and albania. This corresponds to more risk-avoidance
or change-avoidance but not necessarily to more collectivism. They are also partially
individualistic because they stick to their individually accustomed interactions (an
individually influenced collective) to them and avoid new interactions
which are not yet individual to them. I mean, an individual can be member of a collective,
but if this collective is individually accustomed (family), this individual is both
individualist and collectivist at the same time, according to my definition. But
according to Hofested's definition, it is not possible to decide how much individualistic
or collectivistic this person would be.
An Example:
I observed a remarkable individual pride in south european men (Greeks, Turks) compared to
northern europeans (e.g. Germans). They are prouder of their individual heritage (clannishness?),
in contrast to North-westeners who are keen to abandon their individual family as soon as possible
in favour of new peers (mind the teenagers :laughing: ). This corresponds well to the stronger
obedience of north-europeans to their state and to anonymous people whom they
can not individually control or know (collectivistic behaviour?). OTH, I found that many
south-europeans are reluctant to join a group before they are convinced that the group will
respect them as an individual first (individualistic?). They demand personal respect
beforehand (mind the vendetta, or spaniards demonstrating for government support :laughing: ).
The north europeans in turn often desperately try to be a group member, hoping that they will be
respected one day (collectivistic?). A southerner would rather blame the collective for his
individual misforune (collectivistic or individualistic?). This actually indicates that in the
north-euro case the individual is even more pressed to serve society than in the south.
For me that's collectivism. Depending on which level you look at, it can be more-or-less
both individualistic or collectivistic.
I wonder if the low social mobility in certain southern regions has to do with the
longer history of farming. Land is static, passive and safe, but money is dynamic,
active and risky (as hunting and gathering?). There is also currently a strong difference
between rural and urban societies in the balkans, for instance in serbia.
- I want to make clear, that the above is an exaggerated picture! South and north
europenas are not remotely that extremely different.
- Risk handling more directly explains economic situations. An entrepreneur is
always a risk taker, no matter if collectivist or individualist.
I hope my opinion has become more clear.
Exactly my thoughts I wasn't able to put my finger on! :good_job:
From this point of view I always regarded Germans as very obedient and collectivistic in comparison to South Europeans. Your examples are the same I had in mind.
When it comes to genetics the South-North division is completely outdated. You have for example Spaniards who are genetically closer to Germans than to Sicilians (Nelis et al.)
Exactly my thoughts I wasn't able to put my finger on! :good_job:
From this point of view I always regarded Germans as very obedient and collectivistic in comparison to South Europeans. Your examples are the same I had in mind.
What about "sense of duty"? I don't mean, obedience, to do a job right because someone, like boss, told me too. I mean something more like "obedient to yourself". For example, if I plan to do maintenance around my house for a weekend, I can't rest, I can't stop till the plan is done. If the plan is interrupted I feel bad with uneasy feeling. If the plan and work is done, it feels great with this accomplishment. Nothing else but my internal feelings are forcing me to do and finish my job. Even if I hate the job. I can't explain it better than genetics. I was always like this, since I can remember, my mother is like this, but my father (who was supposed to teach me work ethics) is totally opposite.
On the other hand, when I look at societies with feudalistic traditions like rural
balkans, here dominate static relationsships: clan, family, village, tradition, land.
Also the mafia in south italy and albania. This corresponds to more risk-avoidance
or change-avoidance but not necessarily to more collectivism. They are also partially
individualistic because they stick to their individually accustomed interactions (an
individually influenced collective) to them and avoid new interactions
which are not yet individual to them. I mean, an individual can be member of a collective,
but if this collective is individually accustomed (family), this individual is both
individualist and collectivist at the same time, according to my definition. But
according to Hofested's definition, it is not possible to decide how much individualistic
or collectivistic this person would be.
An Example:
I observed a remarkable individual pride in south european men (Greeks, Turks) compared to
northern europeans (e.g. Germans). They are prouder of their individual heritage (clannishness?),
in contrast to North-westeners who are keen to abandon their individual family as soon as possible
in favour of new peers (mind the teenagers :laughing: ).
That's an interesting point of view. You are giving individualistic characteristics to small groups (family, village). However, in my eyes, this is just collectivism. The size of the group in collectivism does not matter. Whether your allegiance is to your family, village, region, country, supra-national organisation, religion, or whatever, it is always a form of collectivism. What matter is the attitude, the way of thinking and behaving, not the nature of the group itself. The fundamental difference between a purely individualistic person and a purely collectivist one (I say "purely", but most people fall somewhere in between) is that the individualist thinks by himself and for himself (self-centred ago) without caring about what others think, nor their opinion of him. The collectivist only lives through the eyes of others. That's why he/she will want more respect. The mafia is the epitome of collectivism because it is strongly based on interpersonal relationships and respect. North Europeans are keen to leave their family as soon as possible, because for an individualist freedom and success can only be achieved on one's own, without the restrictions imposed by the help of others. If someone helps you achieve something, it feels like cheating to a true individualist. The self-worth comes from one's own ego, not from how others feel about you.
OTH, I found that many
south-europeans are reluctant to join a group before they are convinced that the group will
respect them as an individual first (individualistic?).
That's because collectivist people actively seek approval and need respect from others in order to feel good. A pure individualist doesn't give a damn what others think as long as he knows that he is right from his own perspective. That's also why individualistic countries have spawn more (lone) adventurers and pioneering colonists than collectivist ones. The 19th-century cow boy is an individualist, not a collectivist, and inevitably a Northern European.
A southerner would rather blame the collective for his
individual misforune (collectivistic or individualistic?).
That's because collectivists think in term of communities; they more readily reject personal responsibility because they see their lives as an indissociable part of a community. The perfect collectivist would rather die than live on an island all by himself. The perfect individualist would rather die than have all his life decided for him by others. Therefore individualists rarely blame others for their failures or misfortunes, while collectivists typically do. It's also true in politics. Southern European politicians are far more likely to blame others when things go wrong than take personal responsibility for their actions.
This actually indicates that in the
north-euro case the individual is even more pressed to serve society than in the south.
That's because for a perfect individualist the only duality that exists is the self and society (skipping completely the family, social groups, and even nationalities - society is seen as the whole humanity). Collectivists always think in terms of groups, at different levels, leading inevitably to confrontations between groups, whatever they are (the "us vs them" mentality). As selfish as the perfect individualist may seem at first sight, he may be the only one that cares about the well being of society in general, because that is his milieu, where he has to live.
I wonder if the low social mobility in certain southern regions has to do with the
longer history of farming. Land is static, passive and safe, but money is dynamic,
active and risky (as hunting and gathering?). There is also currently a strong difference
between rural and urban societies in the balkans, for instance in serbia.
I seriously doubt that agriculture has anything to do with it. What does it matter that a place has been farming for 6000 years or 8000 years ? (especially if the people who brought agriculture all descend from the same source, in which case all Neolithic farmers have an equally long history of farming, since they descend from the same founders).
I also noticed that local communities were much stronger and isolated from each others in Southeast Europe, in the Middle East and even in South Asia. But I think this is simply because of their ultra-collectivist attitude. They built such strong, cohesive, family-centred communities over the centuries that they cannot leave the group nor dissolve it to the profit of a greater one (like a nation). Individualists don't mind because they don't really care about groups in the first place. That's also why North Europeans could emigrate to North America and almost forget about their heritage, or in any case leave everything behind, readily adopt a new culture and language, and even change their names... Southern Europeans (as well as Middle Easterners and most Asians) typically clustered together with people from their region, or even recreated whole village communities abroad, and tried hard to keep their language and customs. That's the collectivist attitude. Once born and raised into a group you can't give it up for another.
What about "sense of duty"? I don't mean, obedience, to do a job right because someone, like boss, told me too. I mean something more like "obedient to yourself". For example, if I plan to do maintenance around my house for a weekend, I can't rest, I can't stop till the plan is done. If the plan is interrupted I feel bad with uneasy feeling. If the plan and work is done, it feels great with this accomplishment. Nothing else but my internal feelings are forcing me to do and finish my job. Even if I hate the job. I can't explain it better than genetics. I was always like this, since I can remember, my mother is like this, but my father (who was supposed to teach me work ethics) is totally opposite.
Your examples of your sense of duty is a typically individualistic reaction. You do something for yourself, because you have decided to do it. Nobody will scold you if you don't do the maintenance you planned at your house... except yourself ! The ego is the motivation. Likewise, doing well one's homework at school or one's job at work is a way of boosting one's ego.
A true individualist doesn't care if the boss is happy, he cares whether he has the capabilities to do the job, to be better than his co-workers, to achieve his own goals... A true collectivist cares about earning the respect of his boss and co-workers, even if he has to cheat to do it. An individualist will quit if he feels that his job is not challenging or rewarding enough, that he is not learning, progressing, getting somewhere... A collectivist will quit if he feels he is not liked, respected or needed in the company. These are of course extreme cases (most people fit somewhere in between) to illustrate the fundamental difference in way of thinking between the two.
Your examples of your sense of duty is a typically individualistic reaction. You do something for yourself, because you have decided to do it. Nobody will scold you if you don't do the maintenance you planned at your house... except yourself ! The ego is the motivation. Likewise, doing well one's homework at school or one's job at work is a way of boosting one's ego.
A true individualist doesn't care if the boss is happy, he cares whether he has the capabilities to do the job, to be better than his co-workers, to achieve his own goals... A true collectivist cares about earning the respect of his boss and co-workers, even if he has to cheat to do it. An individualist will quit if he feels that his job is not challenging or rewarding enough, that he is not learning, progressing, getting somewhere... A collectivist will quit if he feels he is not liked, respected or needed in the company. These are of course extreme cases (most people fit somewhere in between) to illustrate the fundamental difference in way of thinking between the two.
And if someone has no sense of duty, is he a collectivist then? I think it is not apparent in general whether it is individualism or collectivism, it has nothing to do with these categories in general. It can be anything: a moral value set up by society or parents, a habit, or genetic character trait.
Mzungu mchagga
16-10-11, 12:40
What about "sense of duty"? I don't mean, obedience, to do a job right because someone, like boss, told me too. I mean something more like "obedient to yourself". For example, if I plan to do maintenance around my house for a weekend, I can't rest, I can't stop till the plan is done. If the plan is interrupted I feel bad with uneasy feeling. If the plan and work is done, it feels great with this accomplishment. Nothing else but my internal feelings are forcing me to do and finish my job. Even if I hate the job. I can't explain it better than genetics. I was always like this, since I can remember, my mother is like this, but my father (who was supposed to teach me work ethics) is totally opposite.
What you are referring to is self-discipline. I've been thinking about whether self-discipline can be considered as a special form of obedience. I don't really think so, but I'm not sure. But I would agree that North Europeans are on an average more self-disciplined than South Europeans.
That's an interesting point of view. You are giving individualistic characteristics to small groups (family, village). However, in my eyes, this is just collectivism.
In my eyes it is both, a bit individualistic and collectivisitic, as its probably in most cases.
The size of the group in collectivism does not matter. Whether your allegiance is to your family, village, region, country, supra-national organisation, religion, or whatever, it is always a form of collectivism. What matter is the attitude, the way of thinking and behaving, not the nature of the group itself.
Indeed, I was not restricting my statement to small communities only. I just listed those which seemed more common to me, at least for the balkans. It is also more difficult to fit into or influence a large society by the own individuality than a small one.
The fundamental difference between a purely individualistic person and a purely collectivist one (I say "purely", but most people fall somewhere in between) is that the individualist thinks by himself and for himself (self-centred ago) without caring about what others think, nor their opinion of him. The collectivist only lives through the eyes of others. That's why he/she will want more respect.
As long as a person is not a loner he can not avoid interaction with other people. An interaction is always bidirectional. Under this circumstance, the only question remains to which extent one defends his individual freedom within the collective. The one who demands personal respect beforehand (means unwilling to change his individual character) within this unavoidable collective is more individualistic than others without individual requirements or demands to the group.
The mafia is the epitome of collectivism because it is strongly based on interpersonal relationships and respect.
You are right, the mafia was a bad example. Maybe it is worth to distinguish between collectivistic persons and collectivistic structures. I'm asking myself if a group of individualists can still yield a collectivistic structure or dictatorship. Of course they would be collectivists to some extend, but anyway it is not possible to be 100% individualist or collectivist in reality, as you already said.
North Europeans are keen to leave their family as soon as possible, because for an individualist freedom and success can only be achieved on one's own, without the restrictions imposed by the help of others. If someone helps you achieve something, it feels like cheating to a true individualist. The self-worth comes from one's own ego, not from how others feel about you.
This is again only half of the story. It could be a collectivistic way of being individualist. What about the teenagers who try to be accepted in school and therefore become disobedient to their parents (smoking, taking drugs, etc.) just to be "cool" (individualistic?) among peers? Without those peers most likely they wouldn't do this. Maybe this is not collectivistic, but certainly also not individualistic. They sacrifice their values which they initially already once accepted for just another group. You may claim that this was due to their individualistic decision, but I can claim that they were collectivistic because they where directed by a group.
That's because collectivist people actively seek approval and need respect from others in order to feel good. A pure individualist doesn't give a damn what others think as long as he knows that he is right from his own perspective. That's also why individualistic countries have spawn more (lone) adventurers and pioneering colonists than collectivist ones. The 19th-century cow boy is an individualist, not a collectivist, and inevitably a Northern European.
Maybe. But there could be also other explanations.
That's because collectivists think in term of communities; they more readily reject personal responsibility because they see their lives as an indissociable part of a community.
The perfect collectivist would rather die than live on an island all by himself. The perfect individualist would rather die than have all his life decided for him by others.
But then he must become a loner. As soon as he interacts, he becomes influenced by interaction participants, thus losing individuality.
Therefore individualists rarely blame others for their failures or misfortunes, while collectivists typically do. It's also true in politics. Southern European politicians are far more likely to blame others when things go wrong than take personal responsibility for their actions.
Maybe its worth to distinguish perception and reaction here.
Those who do not blame the group sacrifice individuality to the group, they are willing to change their values or actions because of the group. They are the collectivists with respect to reaction. But with respect to perception they are individualists because they think they have the individual duty.
Those who blame society are not willing to sacrifice their individual character for the society. They are the individualists with respect to reaction. But with respect to perception they are collectivists because they think the group has a duty.
It seems you regard only the perception as criterion for collectivism or individualism. I regard both, coming-up with more difficult constraints to fulfill in order to be classified as individualist. Therefore with my definition most cases appear both, individualistic and collectivistic. After all, I doubt that this dimension is useful.
...
Collectivists always think in terms of groups, at different levels, leading inevitably to confrontations between groups, whatever they are (the "us vs them" mentality). As selfish as the perfect individualist may seem at first sight, he may be the only one that cares about the well being of society in general, because that is his milieu, where he has to live.
It seems our opinions actually do not differ that much. Its just that what you call individualist I would still call collectivist, because I have a more rigid definition of an individualist.
I seriously doubt that agriculture has anything to do with it. What does it matter that a place has been farming for 6000 years or 8000 years ? (especially if the people who brought agriculture all descend from the same source, in which case all Neolithic farmers have an equally long history of farming, since they descend from the same founders).
Agriculture requires social stability (heritage etc.), while hunting and gathering requires social flexibility (team work). So why are 8000 years not long enough to evolve suitable characteristics? Not to mention epigenetic adaptation.
I also noticed that local communities were much stronger and isolated from each others in Southeast Europe, in the Middle East and even in South Asia. But I think this is simply because of their ultra-collectivist attitude. They built such strong, cohesive, family-centred communities over the centuries that they cannot leave the group nor dissolve it to the profit of a greater one (like a nation). Individualists don't mind because they don't really care about groups in the first place. That's also why North Europeans could emigrate to North America and almost forget about their heritage, or in any case leave everything behind, readily adopt a new culture and language, and even change their names... Southern Europeans (as well as Middle Easterners and most Asians) typically clustered together with people from their region, or even recreated whole village communities abroad, and tried hard to keep their language and customs. That's the collectivist attitude. Once born and raised into a group you can't give it up for another.
I understand, but for me it is not decidable absolutely if this is collectivist or individualist.
It looks rather like conservatism or uncertainty aversion to me. After all, using my definition I don't see that north-euros are more individualistic than shouth europeans or others.
Individualism is a trait shared by ethnically Celtic and Germanic countries. For instance, North Italy (Celtic) is very individualistic, while South Italy (Greek) is far more collectivist.
Southern European, as well as Atlantic Celtic cultures like the Irish and the Scots, are clannish, meaning that they are collectivist at a family or village level, but not so much at a higher level (regional or national). They trust people they know, people close to them, but distrust big corporations and governments. That is why the current Indignant movement has its roots in Southern Europe and is not likely to be very popular in egalitarian Nordic countries. It is essentially fuelled by clans (families, groups of friends) antagonising the government, seen as the enemy, or at least a cold and distant entity rather than the representative of the people's interests. In Sweden anybody can visit the Prime Minister's office and check his/her mails. Try that in a Latin country, where people like Berlusconi or Sarkozy behave more like distant monarchs than accessible fellow citizens.
I'm confused, I don't know much about genetics (all I know i have read on this site), but do Northern Italian not cluster with the French and Spanish?
In the first paragraph you say Northern Italy is Individualistic, then later go on to say the Protests in Spain are characteristic of collectivist people, but are they not part of the same broad genetic grouping?
I'm not arguing that culturally speaking the collectivist / individualist divide doesn't exist, mearly that its not genetic but cultural.
The world wide protests seen yesterday suggest that if anything the Spanish youth are ahead of the game, they want change because just trying to repair the current system will only get us right back to bust 20 years from now.
http://www.euronews.net/2011/10/16/worldwide-protests-denounce-economic-injustice/
Ed Miliband gave a speak at the Labour conference talking about the culture of 'individualist capitalism' that has destroyed societies and peoples lives, money made at the cost of everything else. video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=22dfz9L9cQQ#t=28s)
And if someone has no sense of duty, is he a collectivist then?
It doesn't matter. There are individualists and collectivists who have a strong sense of duty, and others who don't. It's not a defining factor of individualism or collectivism. It's like asking if liking ice cream makes you a collectivist or not. It's just not related. However the underlying motivation of one's sense of duty works differently in the brain of an individualist and of a collectivist, because they perceive the world differently and have very divergent core values.
It doesn't matter. There are individualists and collectivists who have a strong sense of duty, and others who don't. It's not a defining factor of individualism or collectivism. It's like asking if liking ice cream makes you a collectivist or not. It's just not related. However the underlying motivation of one's sense of duty works differently in the brain of an individualist and of a collectivist, because they perceive the world differently and have very divergent core values.
Oh, right. Sorry I did not read carefully. You mean that the motivation in LeBrok's example is individualistic, not the sense of duty per se. Absolutely agree. My question is obsolete then.
I'm confused, I don't know much about genetics (all I know i have read on this site), but do Northern Italian not cluster with the French and Spanish?
In the first paragraph you say Northern Italy is Individualistic, then later go on to say the Protests in Spain are characteristic of collectivist people, but are they not part of the same broad genetic grouping?
If individualism is indeed genetic (as I believe it is), it is probably located on just one gene, or a few SNP's on a few genes. The overall autosomal similarity is therefore irrelevant. As I said before, there can be big differences in individualism levels between members of a same family, depending on which individual inherited the mutation(s) and which didn't. This is particularly obvious in interracial couples. If one parent is very individualistic (e.g. Northwest European) and the other is very collectivist (e.g. Southeast European or East Asian), the children will either inherit one parent's individualist mindset or the other parent's collectivist mindset.
I know from observing such families that it isn't a matter of education, because the signs of individualism already show in the behaviour of babies before they can speak (thus before going to preschool or being influenced by the local culture or society). Individualistic babies can stay by themselves without crying or play alone by themselves, while collectivist ones need a constant parental presence (and cry more easily in the presence of strangers too).
I have observed that the stronger correlation with individualism is to be found in Celto-Germanic countries, perhaps even more Celtic than Germanic ones. The core of individualistic cultures run from North Italy to the British Isles, via France and the Low countries. You may argue that Iberia is also Celtic, but probably not the same Celtic as in North Italy, France and Belgium (Hallstatt/La Tène) or Britain and Ireland (Brythonic). Anyway it seems that the alleles for individualism are considerably lower in the Iberian gene pool than in North Italy or France.
Ed Miliband gave a speak at the Labour conference talking about the culture of 'individualist capitalism' that has destroyed societies and peoples lives, money made at the cost of everything else
Actually, the individualism-collectivism scale can also be applied to politics. Liberals (both economically and socially) are the most individualistic, while socialists and communists are obviously the most collectivist. Of course political parties are not usually as clear cut as these theoretical ideologies, and names are often misleading. Jacques Chirac belonged to a right-wing pro-liberal party but had socialist ideals (and started politics as a member of the communist party, unsurprisingly). Tony Blair did just the opposite, being mostly a right-wing liberal but joining and reforming a left-wing socialist party. In the USA, the Democrats are a left-wing party, but with the same opinions and agendas would be classified as right-wing in most of Europe. The so-called Conservatives, in both Britain and America are actually economic ultra-liberals who are socially conservative (usually due to religious values in the States). But if you can make abstraction of appellations, and just look at the deep-rooted values that motivate politicians, you will see that those with individualistic personalities have more liberal leanings (and vice versa).
spongetaro
21-10-11, 15:05
Jacques Chirac belonged to a right-wing pro-liberal party but had socialist ideals (and started politics as a member of the communist party, unsurprisingly).
Jacques Chirac belonged to the Gaullist party which wasn't pro liberal. Most of welfare state in france was established during Gaullist era (De Gaulle+Pompidou).
Also where did you get the idea that Chirac had "socialist" ideals and that he started politics as member of the communist party (!) ?
Jacques Chirac belonged to the Gaullist party which wasn't pro liberal. Most of welfare state in france was established during Gaullist era (De Gaulle+Pompidou).
You are right for the RPR (dissolved in 2002), but I had the UMP in mind (the party of his second term as president), which is more liberal. Anyway we agree that Chirac was generally quite opposed to the Anglo-American economic liberalism, and this is something that communists, socialists and conservative Gaullists all have in common. Sarkozy is far more liberal, despite being also a member of the UMP. Chirac and him are almost opposites.
My point here is that Chirac is not an individualist. Chirac always sided with the popular opinion instead of making vital reforms. This is the mentality of a pleaser, someone who cares more about what people think of him than about his own "performance". In contrast, an individualist will do what he thinks his right, even if the majority disagrees (that would be more like Sarkozy, although he is only a moderate individualist, otherwise he could not have been elected in a country like France).
In a country like the United Kingdom, few people criticise individualistic values like entrepreneurialism and liberalism because most people are more individualistic than collectivist. In most of southern Europe (North Italy being an exception), people will put more values on relationships, family, social consensus, and solidarity, and favour an interventionist and protectionist state. France suffers from a dichotomy by being a mixture of very individualistic (mostly in the North and East) and quite collectivist people (especially in the centre and Southwest). I have a feeling that this is causing a lot of debate, discomfort and annoyance on both sides of the French population, a sort of "social malaise" affecting France much more than other countries in Europe (although Belgium and Italy also have similar north-south tensions based on the same individualism-collectivism divergence).
Also where did you get the idea that Chirac had "socialist" ideals and that he started politics as member of the communist party (!) ?
That's common knowledge. Just check his biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Chirac). He was a member of the Communist Party in the 1950's.
spongetaro
21-10-11, 16:06
You are right for the RPR (dissolved in 2002), but I had the UMP in mind (the party of his second term as president), which is more liberal. Anyway we agree that Chirac was generally quite opposed to the Anglo-American economic liberalism, and this is something that communists, socialists and conservative Gaullists all have in common. Sarkozy is far more liberal, despite being also a member of the UMP. Chirac and him are almost opposites.
I think that Chirac was neither socialist nor liberal he just did nothing as President.
Sarkozy is Liberal in his speeches but the only real "liberal" policy he applied was to reduce taxes on rich people.
Also, I just checked your link and you're right on the fact that he entered politic as a Communist.
spongetaro
21-10-11, 16:15
My point here is that Chirac is not an individualist. Chirac always sided with the popular opinion instead of making vital reforms.
I don't think that to side with the popular opinion is a feature of non liberal leaders. When a candidate says that he will reduce taxes (Like Reagan and Sarkozy did), it is to please the popular opinion but in the same way it is to implement a liberal policy (Laffer curve...)
I don't think that to side with the popular opinion is a feature of non liberal leaders. When a candidate says that he will reduce taxes (Like Reagan and Sarkozy did), it is to please the popular opinion but in the same way it is to implement a liberal policy (Laffer curve...)
All politicians lie during election campaigns. Chirac knew that he was not going to be re-elected after his second term as president (and indeed was quitting politics), but he kept avoiding unpopular yet necessary reforms (like raising the age of pension) because he cared more about being liked than about doing what was best for the country's future. That's why I always hated him.
I have observed that the stronger correlation with individualism is to be found in Celto-Germanic countries, perhaps even more Celtic than Germanic ones.
An obvious counterexample within the British Isles: the English tend to be more individualist than that Welsh, which is reflected in their elected representatives.
I think that culture and history influence politics more than anything else does, and genetics influences culture, but is only a single component of it. So we're apt to see some interesting correlations, but in general the correlation is going to be poor, and it will be difficult to isolate from the influence of non-genetic factors.
If individualism is indeed genetic (as I believe it is), it is probably located on just one gene, or a few SNP's on a few genes. The overall autosomal similarity is therefore irrelevant. As I said before, there can be big differences in individualism levels between members of a same family, depending on which individual inherited the mutation(s) and which didn't. This is particularly obvious in interracial couples. If one parent is very individualistic (e.g. Northwest European) and the other is very collectivist (e.g. Southeast European or East Asian), the children will either inherit one parent's individualist mindset or the other parent's collectivist mindset.
I know from observing such families that it isn't a matter of education, because the signs of individualism already show in the behaviour of babies before they can speak (thus before going to preschool or being influenced by the local culture or society). Individualistic babies can stay by themselves without crying or play alone by themselves, while collectivist ones need a constant parental presence
These are my observations too. You have well thought through case here Maciamo. Good Job.
What about "sense of duty"? I don't mean, obedience, to do a job right because someone, like boss, told me too. I mean something more like "obedient to yourself". For example, if I plan to do maintenance around my house for a weekend, I can't rest, I can't stop till the plan is done. If the plan is interrupted I feel bad with uneasy feeling. If the plan and work is done, it feels great with this accomplishment. Nothing else but my internal feelings are forcing me to do and finish my job. Even if I hate the job. I can't explain it better than genetics. I was always like this, since I can remember, my mother is like this, but my father (who was supposed to teach me work ethics) is totally opposite.
:thinking:
And I always though that Anglo-Saxon culture of work, personal responsibility, sense of duty stem out of religious believes... It doesn’t mean that you have to be religious to work well, but there is something in the general attitudes in how people are brought up and it comes to us through generations.
Usually it the protestant countries are better of economically than catholic ones, even if they have very similar starting positions. The merchants of Venice wanted to build palaces whereas merchants in England build factories …
spongetaro
24-10-11, 16:02
The merchants of Venice wanted to build palaces whereas merchants in England build factories …[/FONT][/SIZE]
Capitalism was almost invented Venice. Until the 1600 Venice had the highest GDP per capita in the World. It was however completely marginalized when most of trades took place in the Atlantic ocean.
You're Catholic/protestant economic division isn't that relevant since catholic countries like Belgium were more economically efficient like Protestant countries like Scotland or Ireland until the mid 20th century.
Look at Germany now, Länder like Bavaria are far more ahead in term of economic efficiency than the northern and eastern Länder.
hmm seems like a nature vs nurture debate.
hmm seems like a nature vs nurture debate.
Sure, pick a side. :)
Eh, I don't get how it could be genetic, since celtic and slavic people are very similar because both are unmixed descendants of the original Indo-European steppe people. Yet, the people favoring the "nature" side, claim that celts and germanics have the "entrepreneurial gene" but not Slavs. But germanic people are a mix of the indo-europeans and the native cro-magnon. It makes no sense. So the way I see it there are 3 options:
1) Indo-europeans carried the "entrepreneurial gene"
2) Cro-Magnon (haplogroup I carriers) carried the "entrepreneurial gene" (therefore the presence of it in celtic populations is the result of mixing with Germanics/or the original inhabitants of the celtic areas)
3) the nature argument is a load of baloney
...
Ed Miliband gave a speak at the Labour conference talking about the culture of 'individualist capitalism' that has destroyed societies and peoples lives, money made at the cost of everything else. video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=22dfz9L9cQQ#t=28s)
I wonder why Miliband blames individualism, since it historically it was a part of humanism, human rights etc (18th, 19th century), which should be a leftist agenda. Further, when I imagine how many of those capitalists were actually competing for social status, they would be collectivists and Miliband blamed the wrong side then. That would be a pity. I'm very sceptical when politicians make use of the individualism-collectivism terms.
ProudTraitor
26-12-11, 22:44
First of all the idea that individualist/collectivist tendecies are genetically determined is totally ridiculous. It's obviously determined by culture, values and one's life experiences.
Second of all individualism vs. collectivism is a false paradigm created by current socio economic system where people have conflicting interests. Individual interest IS collective interest, and collective interest IS individual interest. Society which hurts the individual hurts itself, an individual who hurts society is doing the same.
Entrepreneur-ism is the result of a society filled with ego, where everyone thinks he is the smartest and wants to be the boss. Thre is no need for many companies making the same products> there is an optimal way of making every product and science is the way of discovering it. People learn from each other and experience. With companies ideas, minds and knowledge is seperated and restricted, not to mention the restriction that comes from patents and so called "intellectual property laws"
So collectivism is hurting the GDP? Well if all you want to do is increase it, why don't we bomb half the country just so e cal rebuild it. People should wokr to make something, not for the sake o working.
First of all the idea that individualist/collectivist tendecies are genetically determined is totally ridiculous. It's obviously determined by culture, values and one's life experiences.
Then how do you explain that each individual within the same culture, or even in the same family, obtains a different score in tests of individualism vs collectivism ? The values given for countries by comparative cultural psychologists like Hofstede are averages. If you saw the data for each person tested within a country, you'd see some huge gaps between the top scorers and the bottom scorers. Every country has its individualists and collectivists; it's just that some countries have far more individualists or ultra-individualists than others. These variations between national cultures are concordant with variations in the percentage of gene(s) for individualism inside a national gene pools.
Second of all individualism vs. collectivism is a false paradigm created by current socio economic system where people have conflicting interests. Individual interest IS collective interest, and collective interest IS individual interest. Society which hurts the individual hurts itself, an individual who hurts society is doing the same.
Visibly you are not well acquainted with the methodology of cross-cultural studies, and particularly cross-cultural psychology. You also didn't read my explanations above. Individualists obviously cares about the welfare of society just as much, if not more, than collectivists. That's why the most developed welfare state system are found in individualistic societies like Scandinavia or Britain (note that the NHS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service) is one of the very few completely free for everyone public healthcare system in the world). If you can't understand that you have not the slightest chance of understanding the intricacies of this topic, once we start confronting cross-cultural psychology and economics.
Entrepreneur-ism is the result of a society filled with ego, where everyone thinks he is the smartest and wants to be the boss. That is also one facet of ultra-individualism.
So collectivism is hurting the GDP? Well if all you want to do is increase it, why don't we bomb half the country just so e cal rebuild it. People should wokr to make something, not for the sake o working.
How can I take seriously anyone coming up with that kind of arguments ?
First of all the idea that
individualist/collectivist tendecies are genetically determined is totally
ridiculous. It's obviously determined by culture, values and one's life
experiences.
I'm not that sure. Mild forms of autism can be hereditary for instance.
Second of all individualism vs. collectivism is a false paradigm created by
current socio economic system where people have conflicting interests.
Individual interest IS collective interest, and collective interest IS
individual interest. Society which hurts the individual hurts itself, an
individual who hurts society is doing the same.
A valid definition of collectivism and individualism would be possible, but you are right, the traditional one lumps too many conflicting or irrelevant attributes together and ignores important other ones.
Entrepreneur-ism is the result of a society filled with ego, where everyone
thinks he is the smartest and wants to be the boss.
That is only partially correct. According to the traditional C/I paradigm, "wants to be the boss" can be a collectivist trait, because it may be the desire for social status or power above other people. A true individualist would not like to join the game with others at all, neither as a master nor as a slave. Entrepreneur-ism is in my opinion something independent from individualism or collectivism.
So collectivism is hurting the GDP? Well if all you want to do is increase
it, why don't we bomb half the country just so e cal rebuild it. People
should wokr to make something, not for the sake o working.
The traditional definition of "individualism" takes only into account the individualist's duties but entirely ignores the individualist's rights. Those who dare to defend their individualist rights are called collectivists. That's why GDP likes this kind of individualism.
[QUOTE=ProudTraitor;390353]First of all the idea that individualist/collectivist tendecies are genetically determined is totally ridiculous. It's obviously determined by culture, values and one's life experiences.
QUOTE]
I totally agree.
I strongly suggest reading (or get trained for that matter) on Spiral Dynamics, or better read the "Never Ending Quest", the originial (saved) work of Clare W. Graves. It is the most comprehensive, logical and scientific bio-psycho-social approach of human(s) development.
From the Spiral Dynamics point of view German society actualy is in a "blue" system which is a collective one "WE" combined with the "orange" which is "I" entreprenurial. There are no pure entreprenurial genes and less entreprenurial genes. In the Hitler time the German society was on its peak "blue" system.
What is ridiculous is to claim no genetic influence on our cultures.
Start thinking basic, no genes, no humans, no culture. Why dogs don't speak to communicate, because nobody taught them to, right?
Things like collectivism and individualism are extremely hard, and always will be, to evaluate in genetic equations. Possibility of hundreds of genes influencing these traits makes this case difficult, but it doesn't negate genetic predispositions. On contrary, all we know about genetics tells us that they influence almost everything in our lives. They even explain why some people go against main stream culture. For example, why some people don't believe in god, or why some are gay in spite of strong social pressures. And yes, here is a news for some of us, even the devil originates in our genes, lol. (but name of a devil is cultural for a change).
We have already evidence of cultural trends being directed by genes, especially in case of single genes, which are easy to decipher.
Central Europe is dairy oriented capital of the world. It has a deep culture of milk drinking, cheese eating people. This is only place on this planet where on can find milk bars/restaurants.
Do you think, that this strong behaviour comes from free choice, or is overwhelmingly cultural in nature? You could be wrong on two counts, if you do.
It all comes to genetic mutation that enabled Europeans (maybe originally IE) to digest cows milk and it's byproducts. This innovation unleashed extra calories and gave an edge to our ancestors. Now we call it lactose tolerance.
In contrast, east Asians are 99% lactose intolerant, and for that reason, their culture doesn't include milk drinking and cheese eating. They have to settle for less caloric tofu and soya "milk". It is strongly influenced by genetics, and not by a choice of wise Chinese preferring healthy tofu and soya, over unhealthy milk and cheese.
I'm pretty sure, it is a matter of time, when we would be able just looking at someone genome, to determine if a person will be more individualistic or social.
Nobody is predestined to eat dairy food, we all have certain human genes but how we turn out it depends on our life conditions which is our programing. Read "Virus of the mind" a wonderful book, if you do not want to read Dawkins.
In the table below are the systems that are at work among humans according to Graves and SD. However these are very rough description since each human now has more than three systems in him/herself at work, plus there are entering phase, peak phase, exiting phase. And people or societies can be centralized in one system more then another, but the healthy system is the one that is openned, while we have arrested societies or people in one system or worse those that are blocked and cannot change, these people or societies are unable to adapt to changing life conditions. Below are the coping systems that we use in our everyday life. What applies for one person applies for the group of people as well as the nations. Here are the systems at work according to SD:
LIFE CONDITIONS
BRAIN/MIND
COPING CAPACITIES
A
State of nature and biological urges and drives: physical senses dictate the state of being.
BEIGE
N
Instinctive: as natural instincts and reflexes direct; automatic existence.
B
Threatening and full of mysterious powers and spirit beings that must be placated and appeased.
PURPLE
O
Animistic: according to tradition and ritual ways of group: tribal; animistic.
C
Like a jungle where the tough and strong prevail, the weak serve; nature is an adversary to be conquered.
RED
P
Egocentric: asserting self for dominance, conquest and power. Exploitive; egocentric.
D
Controlled by a Higher Power that punishes evil and eventually rewards good works and righteous living.
BLUE
Q
Absolutistic: obediently as higher authority and rules direct; conforming; guilt.
E
Full of resources to develop and opportunities to make things better and bring prosperity.
ORANGE
R
Muitiplistic: pragmatically to achieve results and get ahead; test options; maneuver
F
The habitat wherein humanity can find love and purposes through affiliation and sharing.
GREEN
S
Relativistic; respond to human needs; affiliative; situational; consensual; fluid.
G
A chaotic organism where change is the norm and uncertainty an acceptable state of being.
YELLOW
T
Systemic: functional; integrative; interdependent; existential; flexible; questioning; accepting.
H
A delicately balanced system of interlocking forces in jeopardy at humanity’s hands; chaordic.
TURQUOISE
U
Holistic: experiential: transpersonal; collective consciousness; collaborative; interconnected.
We all need to learn and understand in order to escape the judging out of our egos. The worst thing is the complex of superiority or inferiority which again has to do with our life programing, not our genes.
that one did not work. Here is the table again, hoep it works this time.
LIFE CONDITIONS
BRAIN/MIND
COPING CAPACITIES
A
State of nature and biological urges and drives: physical senses dictate the state of being.
BEIGE
N
Instinctive: as natural instincts and reflexes direct; automatic existence.
B
Threatening and full of mysterious powers and spirit beings that must be placated and appeased.
PURPLE
O
Animistic: according to tradition and ritual ways of group: tribal; animistic.
C
Like a jungle where the tough and strong prevail, the weak serve; nature is an adversary to be conquered.
RED
P
Egocentric: asserting self for dominance, conquest and power. Exploitive; egocentric.
D
Controlled by a Higher Power that punishes evil and eventually rewards good works and righteous living.
BLUE
Q
Absolutistic: obediently as higher authority and rules direct; conforming; guilt.
E
Full of resources to develop and opportunities to make things better and bring prosperity.
ORANGE
R
Muitiplistic: pragmatically to achieve results and get ahead; test options; maneuver
F
The habitat wherein humanity can find love and purposes through affiliation and sharing.
GREEN
S
Relativistic; respond to human needs; affiliative; situational; consensual; fluid.
G
A chaotic organism where change is the norm and uncertainty an acceptable state of being.
YELLOW
T
Systemic: functional; integrative; interdependent; existential; flexible; questioning; accepting.
H
A delicately balanced system of interlocking forces in jeopardy at humanity’s hands; chaordic.
TURQUOISE
U
Holistic: experiential: transpersonal; collective consciousness; collaborative; interconnected.
I
Too soon to say, but should tend to be I-oriented; controlling, consolidating if the pattern holds.
CORAL
V
Next neurological capacities. The theory is open-ended up to the limits of Homo sapiens' brain.
The theory is open-ended, with the possibility of more systems ahead...
Nobody is predestined to eat dairy food, we all have certain human genes but how we turn out it depends on our life conditions which is our programing.
Terms predestined or destiny won't lead us nowhere in understanding of our nature. Surely people with lactose tolerant gene can refuse to eat dairy products, and people with lactose intolerance can drink milk if they really want to, exercising free will. There are strong consequences though of such actions, which could be deemed unnatural or against destiny if you will. First person will limit his sources for extra calories, which was very vital for survival in the past, in times of constant hunger. The second person will get very limited benefits, or will get violently ill, depending on amount of lactose consumed.
It's OK to be different and not in full control, it actually makes our lives rich and interesting. It doesn't mean we are lesser humans, and it doesn't mean we all shouldn't be equal in our rights or treatments. Acknowledging our differences is crucial in understanding roots of many problems, which in turn will help us to create the right solutions.
Think of it as of personalized medicine, the medicine of the future. Even for the same sickness you will get different doses of medicine or even a different medication.
Now, if we were only different because of life experience, doctors and scientists wouldn't be even talking about personalized medicine, why would they?
Regarding the cheese eating people and milk restaurants, you should come to Kosovo or Albanian restaurants in Skopje (Macedonia) and see how much cheese and dairy products are consumed, it is unbelievable. I always hate going to UK where they do not serve cheese(s) for breakfast and even when they do, it is not a proper cheese.
Albanians always have to have "kos" (there is no English word for it, you know it as "Greek Yogurt") as a companion to our main dishes, drink diluted yogurt with pies (not as European pies), have starters with peppers in "mazë" (another word that cannot be translated in English but it is a sort of cheese made out of double cream) or "gjizë" (the closest is ricotta).
When having problems with stomach and indigestion we usually have cheese (only local one) with bread and "kos" (thick delicious yogurt)! (there is much more that what I presented because dairy products are the basis of our cooking)
Well considering this above, your claims about "a certain edge" become very interesting :smile:. It is quite funny for me actually since if an Albanian would be claiming what you are claiming everybody would hurry to call him an insane nationalist :smile:!
What is ridiculous is to claim no genetic influence on our cultures.
Start thinking basic, no genes, no humans, no culture. Why dogs don't speak to communicate, because nobody taught them to, right?
Things like collectivism and individualism are extremely hard, and always will be, to evaluate in genetic equations. Possibility of hundreds of genes influencing these traits makes this case difficult, but it doesn't negate genetic predispositions. On contrary, all we know about genetics tells us that they influence almost everything in our lives. They even explain why some people go against main stream culture. For example, why some people don't believe in god, or why some are gay in spite of strong social pressures. And yes, here is a news for some of us, even the devil originates in our genes, lol. (but name of a devil is cultural for a change).
We have already evidence of cultural trends being directed by genes, especially in case of single genes, which are easy to decipher.
Central Europe is dairy oriented capital of the world. It has a deep culture of milk drinking, cheese eating people. This is only place on this planet where on can find milk bars/restaurants.
Do you think, that this strong behaviour comes from free choice, or is overwhelmingly cultural in nature? You could be wrong on two counts, if you do.
It all comes to genetic mutation that enabled Europeans (maybe originally IE) to digest cows milk and it's byproducts. This innovation unleashed extra calories and gave an edge to our ancestors. Now we call it lactose tolerance.
In contrast, east Asians are 99% lactose intolerant, and for that reason, their culture doesn't include milk drinking and cheese eating. They have to settle for less caloric tofu and soya "milk". It is strongly influenced by genetics, and not by a choice of wise Chinese preferring healthy tofu and soya, over unhealthy milk and cheese.
I'm pretty sure, it is a matter of time, when we would be able just looking at someone genome, to determine if a person will be more individualistic or social.
Um I think it is between 90 to 94 percent. 99 percent sounds astonishingly high to me, I can't be one of the 1 percent East Asians out there who can consume cheese and yogurt everyday. :thinking:
I agree. I've been always sensing that there is a strong genetic component how countries are governed, how people behave or how orderly institutions and businesses function in different countries.
I have an observation about collectivism. It looks like it has a duel or split personality. Collectivism of southern countries is strong on personal level. People bond strongly, let's say very emotionally with people that they know, like family, villages, work places/ workers unions. They also have strong national identity, but it stops at identity. They mistrust governments, they don't want to pay taxes, and underground economy is rampant. On this level they strongly divide big social construct, like country or big business, between they and we. "We don't want to share with them, they always cheat and use us". But when family and friends come for a visit southern hospitality is unsurpassed.
North Europe is different in this regard. People are more willing to pay taxes, people care more about common property, people are more willing to share wealth with all national we. North collectivism goes easily international giving to the whole world. On other hand, when guest and family come for a visit, you better bring your own food, lol.
There was a great example of collectivism in Germany during this recession. When most businesses in the world were rushing to cut jobs, Germany's businesses, instead of letting unfortunate people go, decided to keep all workforce and cut everybody's working hours and salaries. That's collective sacrifice at it's best, and there wasn't much resistance from the work force to do so. It's all we, it was all for us.
So, who is more collective, south or north? I guess we need to create sub groups for collectivism.
I wrote personally about this subject and wanted to use the quote above, because it illustrates an important point. Germanics are very collectivist in that they consider the needs of the whole when giving. But when receiving they are individualistic. They don't feel weak in needing to constantly lean on a group, but are willing to give to the group. Also they simply don't mind working hard and working long hours without constantly being forced to actually work.
Most non-European or extreme southern European groups are the opposite. They want to take from the group/community but not give anything back. When it comes time to reap the field they are all collectivist. When it comes time to plow the field they are all individualist.
I do believe that southern european, ashkenazi and east asian societies are actually superior in that they feel a stronger sense of clannishness. They do a lot for their family, race etc. Whereas Germanics are like that cattle of the world. They do all the necessary work of bettering the world, always giving to others etc. often at their own expense. Now England for example is mired in debt, third world immigration (associated crime and economic stagnation) and the Germanic race soon faces extinction.
Jewish communities seem to strike a good balance between the "giving" nature and also the "clannish" nature. They are more than willing to strike out in individual enterprise, to do for themselves, to debate and go against the grain of society and to challenge social conventions. At the same time they have a strong sense of family and ethnic loyalty. This is probably why they are more successful than Germanics or any other group on average.
Also about the characterization that England and Netherlands had people who were adventurous and colonizing the world this is a bit wrong. Firstly there may be certain social factors involved in a historical time period. We would need to use many examples to really have an accurate picture rather than looking at one single event. Secondly, the largest immigration to the United States were Germans. Even in early centuries there were large numbers of German and Dutch as well as French. Eventually they simply absorbed the English culture.
French fur trappers were the most bold. They were the first into a new wilderness and went where no one else would go. Of course their primary motivation was personal success. I'm not sure any other reason to take risks (English colonized the new world simply from a desire to travel? I don't think so- most of them wanted better opportunities or religious freedom).
It would seem historically the French showed the most ability to go into dangerous areas, be the first to arrive into a new wilderness etc. The big difference was that the French brought almost only men. Then they often inter bred with natives or with the English. England primarily brought men as well, but in much larger portions brought families, women children etc. with the goal to create a colony. Thus over time the English bred mostly with other English in the early years. By contrast French, Spanish, Dutch etc. mostly inter bred with locals or went home for lack of women. This seemed to have more to do with the decisions of the national leaders. Spain relied more heavily on slave labor and natives rather than trying to establish spanish peasants to work the land.
Also about genetics: genetics is ever changing and "drifting" with each generation. It's totally possible to change the genetics of any given group through selective pressures (which could be cultural or involve national laws etc.). So no group or nation is "doomed" by its genes. Eugenic processes could solve most problems as well genes interact with the environment.
Um I think it is between 90 to 94 percent. 99 percent sounds astonishingly high to me, I can't be one of the 1 percent East Asians out there who can consume cheese and yogurt everyday. :thinking:
Well, even 1 percent of East Asians is 30 million people, so it is not that unlikely that you could be one of them. On top of it, if you're lactose intolerant it doesn't mean that you can't consume some dairy product. You can eat them but you can't digest lactose. Some people act violently like allergic reaction, some can hold food nicely even if they don't digest it.
Real test would be to try drinking couple of glasses of fresh milk, full bodied milk straight from a cow, and see what happens. :shocked:
Funny thing is that even lactose tolerant people might not be able to hold fresh cow milk if they are not use to drinking it daily. If one is not used to certain foods, one is missing vital bacterial flora in one's guts. Without the right bacteria we can't digest food well and it can lead to diarrhea. With any diet change we have to increase new food slowly to makes sure bacterial flora has time to adjust to these changes.
As with everything in life, it is not that straightforward as one could think. ;)
I have an observation about collectivism. It looks like it has a duel or split personality. Collectivism of southern countries is strong on personal level. People bond strongly, let's say very emotionally with people that they know, like family, villages, work places/ workers unions. They also have strong national identity, but it stops at identity. They mistrust governments, they don't want to pay taxes, and underground economy is rampant. On this level they strongly divide big social construct, like country or big business, between they and we. "We don't want to share with them, they always cheat and use us". But when family and friends come for a visit southern hospitality is unsurpassed.
North Europe is different in this regard. People are more willing to pay taxes, people care more about common property, people are more willing to share wealth with all national we. North collectivism goes easily international giving to the whole world. On other hand, when guest and family come for a visit, you better bring your own food, lol.
There was a great example of collectivism in Germany during this recession. When most businesses in the world were rushing to cut jobs, Germany's businesses, instead of letting unfortunate people go, decided to keep all workforce and cut everybody's working hours and salaries. That's collective sacrifice at it's best, and there wasn't much resistance from the work force to do so. It's all we, it was all for us.
Very true. Or take also the famous scandinavian sense for paying high taxes for the common social welfare.
So, who is more collective, south or north? I guess we need to create sub groups for collectivism.
I wrote personally about this subject and wanted to use the quote above, because it illustrates an important point. Germanics are very collectivist in that they consider the needs of the whole when giving. But when receiving they are individualistic. They don't feel weak in needing to constantly lean on a group, but are willing to give to the group. Also they simply don't mind working hard and working long hours without constantly being forced to actually work.
Most non-European or extreme southern European groups are the opposite. They want to take from the group/community but not give anything back. When it comes time to reap the field they are all collectivist. When it comes time to plow the field they are all individualist.
I very much agree to what you both say.
I also already pointed out somewhere else in this forum that what is called "individualism" of northern countries refers only to individual DUTIES, but not to individual RIGHTS. For me that's ultra-collectivism since it is very beneficial for society/collective but very opressive for individuals. Thats why I reject the traditional collectivism/individualism dimension. Else, northern countries rather resemble Japan. But japanese society is considered collectivist. I think the reason for the economic success of northern countries and Japan is in their similarities (obedience and sense of duty), not their differences (detail vs. wholistic thinking etc.).
Regarding south european "collectivism", they in fact care more directly about their individual integrity than north-euros. But as a result, personal ties to close family members emerge as a strategy to defend ones individuality. The turkish-german comedian Serdar Sumuncu once issued his personal amazement about the german unparticular desire to be part of any group (so-called "Vereinsmeierei"). I agree with him only partially and would add that in turkey on the other hand, the importance of family is strong. After all, I believe it has mostly to do with rural vs. urban lifestyle.
For me there is only one way to be individualistic, and that is to be a neutral loner. That in turn means to avoid both, duties AND rights, since duties and rights are both collectivistic things.
What I have discovered about my American redneck/Germanic culture that was brought up to believe in is that it is highly maladaptive for the modern world. Perhaps it works when everybody else has that same Germanic sense of individualism, but it usually breaks apart in large cities and in modern communities which are highly diverse.
When I would work at jobs I would do twice the work as everybody else yet get treated worse. Nobody valued me. Even the typical white American. Their main desire is for friendship, validation etc. things which I never cared about. In other words laugh and joke with the boss and co-workers, drink with them, go play golf with them yet be totally lazy and useless on the job is highly valued. Be the best worker in the entire company but don't talk to others and probably you lose your job.
I find the "corporate culture" here to be inferior, yet we must adapt to reality. It applies in other ways. In urban environments "networks" are useful and having good networks is more important than actual personal intelligence or skill. It's not what you know or how smart you are that gets you ahead in life- it's WHO you know, who you are friends with.
Most Germanics/Nordics have a difficult time grapsing this concept... so they become like the "cattle" of the world. They are always working hard, pulling the weight of the rest but with little benefit to themselves. Many of them get disgusted with the modern world because they totally lack in social skills (both culturally and perhaps genetically) so they are inclined to go live in a rural area where there is less competition, less need to network. Many of them dream of some past world where they could live as vikings and not need to compete with various networks and globalism.
So I find this to be the achilles heel of most Northern Europeans. It is the main reason I strongly disagree with ideas of Nordic superiority. Sure they make great societies, sure they do all the hard work of bettering the world (that most won't do) but they only benefit from it in the short term.
In Europe we see mostly Germanicized mediteranian racial types at the top of the food chain, as well as Ashkenazi Jews which are almost identical to Germanicized mediteranian types. Usually some German or Russian sceintist invents something, but it's the Jew who makes use of the invention and ends up profiting most from it. Or in other endeavors it's usually the Nordic plowing the field but again a Jew or non-Nordic Germanic actually getting most of the profits from this endeavor.
Asians actually are a bit better adapted at networking. Yet only Japanese really share the same sense of strong duty, pride in work etc. Maybe Koreans as well. Chinese maybe a few creme of the crop feel this way, but most chinese have a similar "southern european" ethic.
What I notice for example a lot of Chinese immigrants come to the United States and simply do everything possible to escape paying taxes, even though the country made them rich. They will cheat the system at every turn for personal gain. A sense of collective duty and lack of corruption probably factors a bit higher than I.Q. in national success. In I.Q. and the Wealth of Nations it was shown that statistically I.Q. and "corruption" could be averaged out and account for about 95% of a nation's wealth. The rest mostly was simply natural resources and population density. most of the world has this same "chinese" morality other than Northern Europeans and the far east asians.
For Germanic society to survive they need to learn better social and networking skills as well as form more personal groups. We can say already that most of the "elites" know how to network otherwise they wouldn't stay on top long. Yet for me personally I never learned this. It's not part of the typical culture of most north europeans (other than more mediterianized ones like French).
I think the evolutionary reason for this is that "Nordics" evolved in a rural area in the far north. Until recently Northern Europe could not support large population density. In fact it wasn't until the 1500s that this happened (mostly when the potato came to Europe and some better farming techniques). There never was a need to network. With some technology gains and the introduction of resources from the new world, north europe was able to rise quickly. I see now it is falling quickly as well. In the long term it could be that southern europe is a bit better adapted in some ways (as well as East Asia). Or again we could say the Jewish element of Northern societies better adapted and thus re-engineering society in its own image eventually.
Interesting thread, i think about this subject all the time, both the cultural and genetic components. After my father being on social welfare after a few spinal surgeries (we're Australians of NW euro descent) it got me wondering about his inability to "come back" after such an injury and wondered whether it was factors of mental weakness or purely physical incapability. The only reason i contemplated was because i have fiercely independent and entrepreneurial attributes (even turning down a high paying, highly secure public service job because it conflicted with my beliefs). I researched down the male line as well, his father passed away young but the further you go back the more independant they were. Mostly farmers who were in business for themselves, my great-grandfather even being in business until the day he died.
What I have discovered about my American redneck/Germanic culture that was brought up to believe in is that it is highly maladaptive for the modern world. Perhaps it works when everybody else has that same Germanic sense of individualism, but it usually breaks apart in large cities and in modern communities which are highly diverse.
When I would work at jobs I would do twice the work as everybody else yet get treated worse. Nobody valued me. Even the typical white American. Their main desire is for friendship, validation etc. things which I never cared about. In other words laugh and joke with the boss and co-workers, drink with them, go play golf with them yet be totally lazy and useless on the job is highly valued. Be the best worker in the entire company but don't talk to others and probably you lose your job.
I find the "corporate culture" here to be inferior, yet we must adapt to reality. It applies in other ways. In urban environments "networks" are useful and having good networks is more important than actual personal intelligence or skill. It's not what you know or how smart you are that gets you ahead in life- it's WHO you know, who you are friends with.
Most Germanics/Nordics have a difficult time grapsing this concept... so they become like the "cattle" of the world. They are always working hard, pulling the weight of the rest but with little benefit to themselves. Many of them get disgusted with the modern world because they totally lack in social skills (both culturally and perhaps genetically) so they are inclined to go live in a rural area where there is less competition, less need to network. Many of them dream of some past world where they could live as vikings and not need to compete with various networks and globalism.
So I find this to be the achilles heel of most Northern Europeans. It is the main reason I strongly disagree with ideas of Nordic superiority. Sure they make great societies, sure they do all the hard work of bettering the world (that most won't do) but they only benefit from it in the short term.
In Europe we see mostly Germanicized mediteranian racial types at the top of the food chain, as well as Ashkenazi Jews which are almost identical to Germanicized mediteranian types. Usually some German or Russian sceintist invents something, but it's the Jew who makes use of the invention and ends up profiting most from it. Or in other endeavors it's usually the Nordic plowing the field but again a Jew or non-Nordic Germanic actually getting most of the profits from this endeavor.
Asians actually are a bit better adapted at networking. Yet only Japanese really share the same sense of strong duty, pride in work etc. Maybe Koreans as well. Chinese maybe a few creme of the crop feel this way, but most chinese have a similar "southern european" ethic.
What I notice for example a lot of Chinese immigrants come to the United States and simply do everything possible to escape paying taxes, even though the country made them rich. They will cheat the system at every turn for personal gain. A sense of collective duty and lack of corruption probably factors a bit higher than I.Q. in national success. In I.Q. and the Wealth of Nations it was shown that statistically I.Q. and "corruption" could be averaged out and account for about 95% of a nation's wealth. The rest mostly was simply natural resources and population density. most of the world has this same "chinese" morality other than Northern Europeans and the far east asians.
For Germanic society to survive they need to learn better social and networking skills as well as form more personal groups. We can say already that most of the "elites" know how to network otherwise they wouldn't stay on top long. Yet for me personally I never learned this. It's not part of the typical culture of most north europeans (other than more mediterianized ones like French).
I agree so strongly with what you're saying, though there are a few exceptions like Warren Buffett/Charlie Munger team also Bill Gates who by today's corporate standards are very old fashioned and live frugally, relative to their immense wealth. Though, I totally understand where you're coming from and wholeheartedly agree.
I do believe that southern european, ashkenazi and east asian societies are actually superior in that they feel a stronger sense of clannishness. They do a lot for their family, race etc. Whereas Germanics are like that cattle of the world. They do all the necessary work of bettering the world, always giving to others etc. often at their own expense. Now England for example is mired in debt, third world immigration (associated crime and economic stagnation) and the Germanic race soon faces extinction.
Considering myself a Southern European, being of Corsican descent, I felt extremely interested when I read this thread, and I was delighted to see that some of you take our superiority for granted. I suppose I should fit in the Northern-italian paradigm, my mother being Frankish (both my grandmother and grandfather having very germanic surnames, one even meaning "son of Thor"). Therefore some of you may consider that I am some kind of mestizo, even though my father is also R1b.
This "mixed heritage" also allows me to feel impartial, as I am both descended from northern and southern Europeans. Now, I will just be playing a game, and I hope no one will believe I am serious. Let's play "I am proud to be a Southern European and I despise all those savages from the North". To be able to play the game, I will have to to find several reasons and arguments that will help me strengthen my stance.
First, let us have it at the Germans. The ancestors of these people destroyed classical civilization, sending us backwards several centuries, denying us access to a whole array of technologies that Southern Europeans would have had time to devise if they had not been enslaved, harassed, maimed and raped by Northern Europeans. After all, the steam engine was invented by the Greeks and these people even contrived a forerunner of the computer. I am not even talking about philosophy. The scientists found that several genes interacting with the Fox P2 gene ruling language were positively selected in European populations, but not in others. I bet they were selected in the agora, not in the Scandinavian marshes.
Let us also keep in mind that the Germans are responsible for the eradication of the population with the highest mean IQ in the world, that is the Ashkenazi Jews. That is a very dysgenic trend, isn't it? I say: savages!
From an evolutionary perspective, the German population is going to lose 15 million people between 2010 and 2050. This is due to the fact that Germans are individualists, not collectivists. Germans do not make children, because children are bothersome, and Germans do not like to be disturbed. Germans are self-centered and individualistic: that is why their economy is going to crumble in a few years when no one will be able to pay for all those parasites and retirees that Germany is going to be crowded with.
Take a Germanic guy like that Breivik poor bastard. He wanted to save his "race", so he found nothing better to do than killing ethnic Swedish children to prove his point. Isn't there a blatant failing in that man's reasoning? Well, that is exactly what another Germanic did: Hitler. He did not make children and killed his own. Isn't there a trend to be observed there? The Germans are doomed because they are rabid individualists who are only able to worship a state figure, but cannot love a family or real human beings. That is too complex for them.
A word about the "entrepreneurial Celts". The Irish, for instance, have one of the lowest IQs in Europe. They are universally known for their rashness, lack of planning, etc... Just read the Gallic Wars, and you will see that the Romans considered the Celts as very dim, to say the least. This gap in reasoning and the Celts' high tolerance to uncertainty allowed my careful ancestors, who liked certainty better, to enslave them and put them to good use. Actually, the Italians, southern Europeans, have one of the highest IQs in Europe.
The English make more children than other Northern Europeans. Why is that so? Well, because the English, like the French, are a cultural and genetic crossbreed between Northern and Southern Europeans. They are much better at communicating their emotions than other Germanics, and their language is heavily influenced by southern European languages. They have more warmth in their hearts and they are ready to sacrifice their time and their money to welcome children in their homes. They plan for a future.
Survival lies not in the economy, it lies in biology. Emotions are also carried by genes, and northern Europeans, like Neandertals, are lacking those. What differentiated us from the Neandertals was superior communication skills and the ability to relate to others. Northern Europeans are obviously lacking in those respects. That is why they will disappear.
Happy Father's day to all the southern European scum on this board.
There is not a big genetic distance between French, English and German, so it is impossible that Nordics are genetically anti-social and individualistic. All differences in Europe are cultural and learned behaviors. Personally I find Nordics to be more simple and straight-forward that Southerners, but also more plain. But flavor and emotion is not always good in business and work.
Nordics are genetically anti-social and individualistic. I wouldn't put it this way. They are more socially complacent though, germanics are. There is a difference between socially interactive as southerners are, and follow the crowd, or a leader, the northerners are. I'm still not sure what is the main cause, but I think it is the heightened emotional state of south Europe, in general.
The southern europeans are the first to say I and My family, and the rest of society are They and government are They. Northern people are all We and will follow social and government regulations.
Italians will tell "vaffanculo" to the cop, but try to find German doing so.
This "mixed heritage" also allows me to feel impartial, as I am both descended from northern and southern Europeans. Now, I will just be playing a game, and I hope no one will believe I am serious. Let's play "I am proud to be a Southern European and I despise all those savages from the North". To be able to play the game, I will have to to find several reasons and arguments that will help me strengthen my stance. Sadly, so much of being impartial.
First, let us have it at the Germans. The ancestors of these people destroyed classical civilization, sending us backwards several centuries, denying us access to a whole array of technologies that Southern Europeans would have had time to devise if they had not been enslaved, harassed, maimed and raped by Northern Europeans. Wowowo. Rome decline was long and happened through centuries. Don't blame Germans or Slavs conquering Roman Empire. It wasn't much left of Rome to counterbalance people movement from east and north, around 5th century. You'd be better blaming little ice age for failing crops, population decline for fall of Rome than attacks of savages. It was more of economic/climatic than geopopulation affair anyway.
And yes, I'm also regretting that tribes of north were dumb enough and couldn't learn fast enough to sustain Roman achievements and science. Apparently, education of population takes time. Just don't blame them for fall of Rome. Rome was weak at the time that's why the uneducated and poor barbarians could succeed putting Rome down.
After all, the steam engine was invented by the Greeks and these people even contrived a forerunner of the computer. I am not even talking about philosophy. The scientists found that several genes interacting with the Fox P2 gene ruling language were positively selected in European populations, but not in others. I bet they were selected in the agora, not in the Scandinavian marshes. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who invented what, it matters who can take the invitation to industrial scale, to bring invention and product to the masses.
Who knows who invented the wheel, tamed the horse, or smelted iron. But we know that Indo Europeans introduced them on massive scale and thanks to this conquered whole Europe and half Asia.
Let us also keep in mind that the Germans are responsible for the eradication of the population with the highest mean IQ in the world, that is the Ashkenazi Jews. That is a very dysgenic trend, isn't it? I say: savages!It's getting old. Ordinary Germans knew nothing about this (during the fact), except top natzy elite.
From an evolutionary perspective, the German population is going to lose 15 million people between 2010 and 2050. It's only a prediction, not a fact. Please, use your impartial judgment.
This is due to the fact that Germans are individualists, not collectivists. I think it is in reverse. Even the socialism/communism was working the best in DDR of all soviet block countries.
Germans do not make children,I'm sure I've seen a german child. I think there is a bit exaggeration in your tone.
that is why their economy is going to crumble in a few years when no one will be able to pay for all those parasites and retirees that Germany is going to be crowded with. Are you sure you are still impartial?
Take a Germanic guy like that Breivik poor bastard. He wanted to save his "race", so he found nothing better to do than killing ethnic Swedish children to prove his point. I'm sure there was France's "Breiviks" already in french history. Just refresh your mind. What about french revolution? How many died for the cause of someone's dream?
When one kills it is a domestic terrorism. If many kills it is a revolution.
(I'm not in favour of either, just pointing to the complexity of human brain in general)[/QUOTE]
Well, that is exactly what another Germanic did: Hitler. He did not make children and killed his own. Isn't there a trend to be observed there? The Germans are doomed because they are rabid individualists who are only able to worship a state figure, but cannot love a family or real human beings. That is too complex for them.
I'm still in search of impartial You! One more impartial statement like this and your are banned.
A word about the "entrepreneurial Celts". The Irish, for instance, have one of the lowest IQs in Europe. Check again.
the Italians, southern Europeans, have one of the highest IQs in Europe. There is no real difference of IQ of any European countries.
The English make more children than other Northern Europeans. Why is that so? Maybe because they have most of emigrants?
Well, because the English, like the French, are a cultural and genetic crossbreed between Northern and Southern Europeans. They are much better at communicating their emotions than other Germanics, and their language is heavily influenced by southern European languages. They have more warmth in their hearts and they are ready to sacrifice their time and their money to welcome children in their homes. Or maybe they are just more emotional?
They plan for a future. Agh? Looks like North Europeans invest more in the future, future technologies, and well being of the planet in general. Is this more individualistic or social?
Survival lies not in the economy, it lies in biology. So remind me why T-Rex is extinct? It was the strongest predator of all times?
Oh, right, he couldn't produce enough food to survive during crisis!
Emotions are also carried by genes, and northern Europeans, like Neanderthal, are lacking those. You are on good track, you just exaggerate too much.
Still impartial?
What differentiated us from the Neandertals was superior communication skills and the ability to relate to others. Northern Europeans are obviously lacking in those respects. That is why they will disappear. I'm sure that sooner or later you will realise that northern europeans are not Neanderthals. If they a bit less emotional it doesn't make them less human, is it.
Who said that humans are all about emothings? I believe that it is intelligence that we are most proud of. I also believe that right balance between intelligence and emotions is the most important.
Happy Father's day to all the southern European scum on this board.
And to you too.
I have banned this hate-monger of Athenid. In addition to posting a very offensive first post on the forum, his IP address was from Inverness, Scotland, while he pretended being a Frenchman living Paris. Typical tr0ll material.
Individualism/Collectivism can be twisted as needed to fit any agenda, because it is so artificial. Hofstede's dimensions (from the 1960's) are no true dimensions because they are highly inter-dependent, but they should be independent (orthogonal). Sure, it was a pioneering work, but not at all the final wisdom. I would talk much about this topic, but just one example for now: East asians are traditionally considered typical collectivist societies, whereas north-west euros as individualst (at least the last is politically motivated nonsense imho). Now, genetic research has revealed that most east asians lack important genes for empathy as opposed to caucasians/europeans
"The participants judged as less empathetic those people with either two As (AA) or GA than people with two Gs (GG)."..."On average, only about 15 percent of Caucasians have two A oxytocin receptor gene variants.", http://www.livescience.com/17018-empathy-genetics-behavior.html
So what are the conclusions: does empathy belong to individualism now, or are east-asians actually individualists? Are south-europeans collectivist because of their empathy, or exactly the opposite? Perhaps conformism has been misinterpreted as collectivism!?
I've read somewhere an interestring theory that asian conformism is a strategy to compensate this lack of empathy. I myself noticed a remarkable non-conformism and anarchism among south-europeans, even more than in north-europe. Makes sense. On the other hand, east-europe appeared similarly non-conformist and anarchic to me, which I can't explain yet.
(googling using "East Asians have much higher frequency of the AA" reveals two hits in google cache which has been apparently removed meanwhile)
nordicwarrior
17-06-13, 15:43
Individualism/Collectivism can be twisted as needed to fit any agenda, because it is so artificial. Hofstede's dimensions (from the 1960's) are no true dimensions because they are highly inter-dependent, but they should be independent (orthogonal). Sure, it was a pioneering work, but not at all the final wisdom. I would talk much about this topic, but just one example for now: East asians are traditionally considered typical collectivist societies, whereas north-west euros as individualst (at least the last is politically motivated nonsense imho). Now, genetic research has revealed that most east asians lack important genes for empathy as opposed to caucasians/europeans
So what are the conclusions: does empathy belong to individualism now, or are east-asians actually individualists? Are south-europeans collectivist because of their empathy, or exactly the opposite? Perhaps conformism has been misinterpreted as collectivism!?
I've read somewhere an interestring theory that asian conformism is a strategy to compensate this lack of empathy. I myself noticed a remarkable non-conformism and anarchism among south-europeans, even more than in north-europe. Makes sense. On the other hand, east-europe appeared similarly non-conformist and anarchic to me, which I can't explain yet.
(googling using "East Asians have much higher frequency of the AA" reveals two hits in google cache which has been apparently removed meanwhile)
Really interesting comment. I like the conformist vs. collective comparison.
I do think as I learn more and more about these genetic findings that we have to watch out for a eugenics movement. Will somebody deem this lack of empathy a bad thing? (It may be, but it was put it in the genome for a reason.) I look to nature for answers here-- specifically the average tree canopy.
In most forests, jungles, even suburbs there is a nice mix of plant species. For example the area near my house has a bunch of maples, a few oaks, some birch and interspersed throughout all of these shorter trees are some much taller pines. I'm guessing a healthy mix of haplogroups (both paternal and maternal) and a mix of autosomal traits (like empathic vs. more distant) give our human species an advantage.
nordicwarrior
17-06-13, 15:55
Oh and Athenid you're a douchebag.
Empathy is the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another.
So I guess somebody who lacks empathy would seem as a very rude and machine-like person, capable of doing attrocious things to others.
Empathy is the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another.
So I guess somebody who lacks empathy would seem as a very rude and machine-like person, capable of doing attrocious things to others.
Yeah, that's what most believe, but I don't. In fact, autistic people are found to be statistically less often involved in anti-social behaviour, e.g. crimes. I'm sure that empathy is not required to be a decent person. Autistic people (with exceptions of course) tend to be even more concerned about justice than normal people. That's because they are less fooled by empathy and tend to use reason and logic in order to compensate lack of empathy. A problem is that they also tend to follow rules more rigidly (conformism?). IMHO empathy is a fad. Empathy is actually very selective and unjust, it works only for closely related people, but not for the whole mankind because the latter is too abstract for emotions. But reason and logic can be applied to whole humanity. The Kantian imperative is such an example of an unempathic ethic.
One additional remark: Empathy is also very useful to identify the other's weaknesses in order to exploit them (cheating, blackmail, lying, manipulation,...).
Really interesting comment. I like the conformist vs. collective comparison.
I do think as I learn more and more about these genetic findings that we have to watch out for a eugenics movement. Will somebody deem this lack of empathy a bad thing? (It may be, but it was put it in the genome for a reason.) I look to nature for answers here-- specifically the average tree canopy.
I also don't consider empathy good or bad. But our opinion will not count, so obviously modern genetics is prone by nature to be used for eugenics eventually. Worse, eugenics selection criteria would depend more-or-less on certain fads, hypes or ideologies.
In most forests, jungles, even suburbs there is a nice mix of plant species. For example the area near my house has a bunch of maples, a few oaks, some birch and interspersed throughout all of these shorter trees are some much taller pines. I'm guessing a healthy mix of haplogroups (both paternal and maternal) and a mix of autosomal traits (like empathic vs. more distant) give our human species an advantage.
Right, never put all eggs in one basket.
Yeah, that's what most believe, but I don't. In fact, autistic people are found to be statistically less often involved in anti-social behaviour, e.g. crimes. I'm sure that empathy is not required to be a decent person. Autistic people (with exceptions of course) tend to be even more concerned about justice than normal people. That's because they are less fooled by empathy and tend to use reason and logic in order to compensate lack of empathy. A problem is that they also tend to follow rules more rigidly (conformism?). IMHO empathy is a fad. Empathy is actually very selective and unjust, it works only for closely related people, but not for the whole mankind because the latter is too abstract for emotions. But reason and logic can be applied to whole humanity. The Kantian imperative is such an example of an unempathic ethic.
It is hard to figure out people using reason only. I guess Lack of Empathy is harmless on a society with righteous laws, but it might get scary in Authoritarianism. I don't even want to imagine a 1984-like World Order operated by genetically non-empathetic bureaucrats and law enforcing officials.
Human leadership, before we through ourlselves off-balance in the Iron-Age, were the most spiritual people of the tribe, such as Shamans/priests/priesteses. People say Shamans can read minds; they cannot read minds, they can just recognize emotions better than others.
It is hard to figure out people using reason only. I guess Lack of Empathy is harmless on a society with righteous laws, but it might get scary in Authoritarianism. I don't even want to imagine a 1984-like World Order operated by genetically non-empathetic bureaucrats and law enforcing officials.
I understand what you mean, maybe you are right about authoritarianism, I don't know. Certainly the best would be to be both, empathic and reasonable. Still: Empathy is only one tool to gain knowledge about other's feelings (what's right and wrong), but it is not the only one and it is not even a very sophisticated one. And it is also not the same as having good intentions. A simple example for purely non-empathic reason is:
Person B suffers pain from a catastrophe (EDIT: in most cases it is trivial to understand when someone suffers just by rationally analyzing the situation rather than by reading his mind. Also, empathy would be restricted to direct personal contact, whereas reasonable situation analysis relies completely on formal data only, thus being applicable also to unknown remote persons.). I'm person A. I should help B because A and B are both persons (same species, probably(!) same culture). If I wouldn't help B, then I would violate logic because of double-standard. In this case I would risk to eventually suffer myself from the same double-standard I just created. (that's simple game theory reasoning)
Let's look again at austists: If the parents explain to an autistic child what causes harm to other peer children, then the autistic child is not less likely to comply to this information by behaving more ethically. Grown-up autists can figure out by observation and reason what is harmful or not to others. The only cases where autists truly often tend to hurt other people is when they say things too openly and blatantly. But this is not because of evil intentions but because of unability to understand finer communication nuances, which can happen also to non-autistic people if they come from a different culture with different communicative nuances. Being non-empathic is effectively like being of a foreign culture in some sense.
I also don't consider empathy good or bad. But our opinion will not count, so obviously modern genetics is prone by nature to be used for eugenics eventually. Worse, eugenics selection criteria would depend more-or-less on certain fads, hypes or ideologies.
Right, never put all eggs in one basket.
In order to understand what really empathy is, one has to understand the evolution of the human thinking and evolution of the value systems in people and human society as a whole. Empathy has also an evolving meaning, for one value system may only mean feeling sorry or sad for someones' situation and offering just a plain charity, but there is empathy when people want to change the world and fight for equality since they believe that only in that way they will fight the poverty. There is empathy that understands deeply the problems but sees that they do it to themselves and knows that whatever they do, it will not help them in the long term. There is also a more complex empathy that helps others to wake up and realize their potential therefore be able to make a better world. I have to point out that there were three systems in the human evolution that did not have the concept of empathy at all, and those were systems that were directed by DNA ("selfish gene" as Richard Dawkins calls it) while now we are evolving or getting constantly programmed by both genes and memes.
In order to understand what really empathy is, one has to understand the evolution of the human thinking and evolution of the value systems in people and human society as a whole. Empathy has also an evolving meaning, for one value system may only mean feeling sorry or sad for someones' situation and offering just a plain charity, but there is empathy when people want to change the world and fight for equality since they believe that only in that way they will fight the poverty. There is empathy that understands deeply the problems but sees that they do it to themselves and knows that whatever they do, it will not help them in the long term. There is also a more complex empathy that helps others to wake up and realize their potential therefore be able to make a better world. I have to point out that there were three systems in the human evolution that did not have the concept of empathy at all, and those were systems that were directed by DNA ("selfish gene" as Richard Dawkins calls it) while now we are evolving or getting constantly programmed by both genes and memes.
If I understand you right, you are suggesting several different definitions for empathy here?! Which is the right one? The fight for equality and things like that are actually good examples for non-empathic abstract moral reasoning which I explained above.
Also, scientists seem to consider empathy more as something basic neurological and subconcious, I would say animal-like (http://www.livescience.com/1628-study-people-literally-feel-pain.html). This is the level where I would seek for a proper definition of empathy rather than in the higher abstract levels, because these higher levels are controlled by conciousness and reason.
Athelti Albanoi
17-06-13, 21:14
hahahahah what a thread and this from the admin
how can you link unenployment with genetics
the youths in greece have no jobs because there are any not because they are too lazy
If I understand you right, you are suggesting several different definitions for empathy here?! Which is the right one? The fight for equality and things like that are actually good examples for non-empathic abstract moral reasoning which I explained above.
Also, scientists seem to consider empathy more as something basic neurological and subconcious, I would say animal-like (http://www.livescience.com/1628-study-people-literally-feel-pain.html). This is the level where I would seek for a proper definition of empathy rather than in the higher abstract levels, because these higher levels are controlled by conciousness and reason.
No, you did not understand me at all. If you are looking for an absolute definition then you will not find the answer. I had to study the human nature for more then 10 years and I am still constantly learning. One thing that we all need to understand is that only change is the norm when it comes to human nature and human nature is not linear but lateral.
No, you did not understand me at all. If you are looking for an absolute definition then you will not find the answer. I had to study the human nature for more then 10 years and I am still constantly learning. One thing that we all need to understand is that only change is the norm when it comes to human nature and human nature is not linear but lateral.
Even vague assumptions, hypothese or theories can and should be defined precisely as such. Definitions are not meant to be hard-coded in eternal stone, they can and should be constantly updated and refined, still they a basic necessity for reasoning and discussion.
But the main concern is: that the commonly used definition of empathy includes at least two different concepts, which are so unrelated to each other that the definition becomes useless:
for one value system may only mean feeling sorry or sad for someones' situation and offering just a plain charity, but there is empathy when people want to change the world and fight for equality since they believe that only in that way they will fight the poverty.
-> conscious reason and unconscious drive, two things.
In the linked article, where scientists investigate genetic causes of empathy it is obvious that they had to narrow down the definition of empathy to unconcious emotion only, else it were useless.
Really interesting comment. I like the conformist vs. collective comparison.
I do think as I learn more and more about these genetic findings that we have to watch out for a eugenics movement. Will somebody deem this lack of empathy a bad thing? (It may be, but it was put it in the genome for a reason.) I look to nature for answers here-- specifically the average tree canopy.
.
That's because there is not only single successful way for life to evolve, the path to follow. If there was only one way, we would have had only one plant and one animal on this planet. The environment is so complex and ever changing on earth that it creates countless successful possibilities to "choose" for evolution. That's why we have millions of different plant and animal species.
Likewise collective or individual characters give positive outcomes for societies. Probably the most important thing is to keep these traits of characters in balance, where too much collectivism and too much individualism would be destructive for any group of people.
Even vague assumptions, hypothese or theories can and should be defined precisely as such. Definitions are not meant to be hard-coded in eternal stone, they can and should be constantly updated and refined, still they a basic necessity for reasoning and discussion.
But the main concern is: that the commonly used definition of empathy includes at least two different concepts, which are so unrelated to each other that the definition becomes useless:
Well said.
-> conscious reason and unconscious drive, two things.
In the linked article, where scientists investigate genetic causes of empathy it is obvious that they had to narrow down the definition of empathy to unconcious emotion only, else it were useless. I'm completely in agreement with it.
Even vague assumptions, hypothese or theories can and should be defined precisely as such. Definitions are not meant to be hard-coded in eternal stone, they can and should be constantly updated and refined, still they a basic necessity for reasoning and discussion.
But the main concern is: that the commonly used definition of empathy includes at least two different concepts, which are so unrelated to each other that the definition becomes useless:
-> conscious reason and unconscious drive, two things.
In the linked article, where scientists investigate genetic causes of empathy it is obvious that they had to narrow down the definition of empathy to unconcious emotion only, else it were useless.
If you read Dr. Clare W. Graves the "Never ending quest" who has been doing his research for 30 years in the field of bio-psycho-sociology, he came to the conclusion that the empathy actually is born in the sixth system that he marked as FS, I have it in my previous posts. So only now the humanity is grasping the empathy. Why? Because our perceptions change and with it our DNA gets reprogrammed, it is a circle, cause and effect, never ending story.
The way I understand the empathy (and that is my perception created by how I was programmed through my DNA and memes that I accepted through my lens) is when a human being is able to understand what someone is going through whichever experience one is going through. But that is not the end, empathy is when we are aware what our actions will cause in short and long term in others and future generations and that is definitely difficult to understand by studying the genes and by trying to quantify. And empathy actually is not subconscious but it is awareness - mindfulness. We can be empathetic only when we achieve to understand and manage ourselves when we understand why we do what we do, and if there is a different way of doing it without harming others.
Empathy is a concept, same as freedom for eg., and concepts change with the evolution of the human DNA and brain/consciousness.
If you read Dr. Clare W. Graves the "Never ending quest" who has been doing his research for 30 years in the field of bio-psycho-sociology, he came to the conclusion that the empathy actually is born in the sixth system that he marked as FS, I have it in my previous posts. So only now the humanity is grasping the empathy. Why? Because our perceptions change and with it our DNA gets reprogrammed, it is a circle, cause and effect, never ending story.
I don't see the point of your argument since you seem to acknowledge DNA and I'm not arguing anything about possible causes of why empathy or any values happen to be encoded in the DNA or not. I just claim that some behaviour just is DNA encoded (currently in some Humans f.i. Oxytocin-Reception) and some other is not (yet). Of course DNA evolution is also selected by self-imposed value systems, but that's not the point, because it requires several generations. I think you talk about something different here (memes, co-evolution of values and DNA, etc.).
The way I understand the empathy (and that is my perception created by how I was programmed through my DNA and memes that I accepted through my lens) is when a human being is able to understand what someone is going through whichever experience one is going through. But that is not the end, empathy is when we are aware what our actions will cause in short and long term in others and future generations and that is definitely difficult to understand by studying the genes and by trying to quantify. And empathy actually is not subconscious but it is awareness - mindfulness. We can be empathetic only when we achieve to understand and manage ourselves when we understand why we do what we do, and if there is a different way of doing it without harming others.
Empathy is a concept, same as freedom for eg., and concepts change with the evolution of the human DNA and brain/consciousness.
Whatever it is, it is worth to separate what is currently programmed by DNA, what is from subconciously trained and what is concious reason, et cetera. I did not read Dr. Clare W. Graves. Does he claim that this kind of analysis is nonsensical?
I did not read Dr. Clare W. Graves. Does he claim that this kind of analysis is nonsensical?
I tried to put a different point of view in this discussion thread, I am not showing off or pretending that I know better or everything, I am simply sharing with others what I have learned and applied in my life with myself and other people. I have learned it the hard way and finally I am happy for it. I have experienced the worst in people during the war in Kosovo and other bestiality prior to it, but only now I understand why a human would kill a human being or why a human would help another human being. And yes Grawes gave me this insight, but only after I was able to manage my own prejudices otherwise it would not work.
I tried to put a different point of view in this discussion thread, I am not showing off or pretending that I know better or everything,
I neither. I didn't know about the work of Dr. Graves before our discussion, thank you for that.
I am simply sharing with others what I have learned and applied in my life with myself and other people. I have learned it the hard way and finally I am happy for it. I have experienced the worst in people during the war in Kosovo and other bestiality prior to it, but only now I understand why a human would kill a human being or why a human would help another human being. And yes Grawes gave me this insight, but only after I was able to manage my own prejudices otherwise it would not work.
A cronic problem especially in "soft sciences" seems to be definitions, where each one uses a different one, because concepts are so vague, however.
apulomilan
25-09-13, 16:30
Maciamo, you say "Many character traits are genetic, and individualism is certainly one of the most genetic of them all"
Sorry, which are the scientifical proofs of this statement? Which is the gene of individualism? which are the genes of the other "many character traits" you mention?
One additional remark: Empathy is also very useful to identify the other's weaknesses in order to exploit them (cheating, blackmail, lying, manipulation,...).
That is emotional intelligence. If one has high emotional intelligence but lacks empathy will use it for the purposes that you mentioned. So for eg Gandhi had high EQ but he also had empathy, that most of us would recognize it as wisdom, while Hitler and others alike (dictators) had high EQ but lacked empathy. All the leaders (in whatever category, business, political or social) have high EQs, the difference for better or for worse is in the empathy. Stephen Covey explains this perfectly in his 8th habit.
Thanks, the definition is indeed my problem here. According to Hofstede:
- individualism: loose ties/interactions between individuals
- collectivism: strong ties/interactions between individuals
My own huble definition:
- individualism: loose or sparse ties/interactions between individuals
- collectivism: strong or frequent ties/interactions between individuals
Your refining approach by different categories is also good.
But I don't like Hofested's definition because the terms "loose" and "strong" in our case
in this thread rather correspond to "dynamic" and "static", resp. Consequently the north-west
european peoples tend to be just more socially mobile or dynamic (risk taking), but this is
not exactly individualism in my definition, just social entrepreneursship. They can make
individual actions or decisions for a collectivist goal (socialize). According to Hofstede this
is indeed fully individualistic as you say, because interactions are disrupted. According
to my definition it is only partially individualistic because the interactions are in fact
disrupted for the sake of new interactions. This fits well to the free-market
capitalism with its is high social mobility/dynamic, but by no means lack of social
ties.
On the other hand, when I look at societies with feudalistic traditions like rural
balkans, here dominate static relationsships: clan, family, village, tradition, land.
Also the mafia in south italy and albania. This corresponds to more risk-avoidance
or change-avoidance but not necessarily to more collectivism. They are also partially
individualistic because they stick to their individually accustomed interactions (an
individually influenced collective) to them and avoid new interactions
which are not yet individual to them. I mean, an individual can be member of a collective,
but if this collective is individually accustomed (family), this individual is both
individualist and collectivist at the same time, according to my definition. But
according to Hofested's definition, it is not possible to decide how much individualistic
or collectivistic this person would be.
An Example:
I observed a remarkable individual pride in south european men (Greeks, Turks) compared to
northern europeans (e.g. Germans). They are prouder of their individual heritage (clannishness?),
in contrast to North-westeners who are keen to abandon their individual family as soon as possible
in favour of new peers (mind the teenagers :laughing: ). This corresponds well to the stronger
obedience of north-europeans to their state and to anonymous people whom they
can not individually control or know (collectivistic behaviour?). OTH, I found that many
south-europeans are reluctant to join a group before they are convinced that the group will
respect them as an individual first (individualistic?). They demand personal respect
beforehand (mind the vendetta, or spaniards demonstrating for government support :laughing: ).
The north europeans in turn often desperately try to be a group member, hoping that they will be
respected one day (collectivistic?). A southerner would rather blame the collective for his
individual misforune (collectivistic or individualistic?). This actually indicates that in the
north-euro case the individual is even more pressed to serve society than in the south.
For me that's collectivism. Depending on which level you look at, it can be more-or-less
both individualistic or collectivistic.
I wonder if the low social mobility in certain southern regions has to do with the
longer history of farming. Land is static, passive and safe, but money is dynamic,
active and risky (as hunting and gathering?). There is also currently a strong difference
between rural and urban societies in the balkans, for instance in serbia.
- I want to make clear, that the above is an exaggerated picture! South and north
europenas are not remotely that extremely different.
- Risk handling more directly explains economic situations. An entrepreneur is
always a risk taker, no matter if collectivist or individualist.
I hope my opinion has become more clear.
This is it. :good_job:
Talked to some Germans visiting Finland in the summer and they praised how clean and organized everything is, just like home.
The image that you present outside as a collective is what defines you in the north, your family, ethnicity, region and country.
You can break this if you are an good as an individual, you will be taken as part of the "family", but not an automatic thing.
Worst insult is that you are lazy as an individual, person feels that also shames his family and country, and the collective condemns you for not doing your best.
Now this dont apply to those that live outside this collective, they are looked upon as outcasts, they could be foreigners just as well.
edao:
I don't think its a issue genetic issue but one of cultural attitudes. I agree with you. Whether the science corroborates it or not, I would hesitate to draw demarcation lines between northern and southern Europe in this issue. Two examples of opposing culture could be Japan-where, traditionally, the employer was held in reverence of the workers strived to ensure profitability, against England (and it's former colonies) where, through Unionism, many employees see the employer as an enemy as they seek ever increasing wages, better working conditions and shorter working hours. In these countries "sickies" (absence from work claiming illness) are the norm in many areas, another factor leading to increased productivity costs, and reduction in markets. New Zealanders call Australia "The Land of the Long Weekend", a reference to both the number of public holidays but also to the number of "sickies" taken on Fridays and Mondays.
edao:
I don't think its a issue genetic issue but one of cultural attitudes. I agree with you.
But what if genetics influences the culture. Makes one culture different than others.
No matter how one raises chimps they are not going to produce cars or make a movie.
This is a drastic example of genetics dictating a culture. I'm not saying there are such differences among nations. But if Northern Europeans are less emotional than Southerners then perhaps this can explain why Northern cultures are more stoic, orderly and utilitarian (traits that aid economy). Where south is more emotional, family oriented, fashion and food loving, suspicious and more egoistic; and likewise their economies and politics are more a messy business.
Having said that (I hope my observations are wrong), I imagine myself retiring somewhere around Mediterranean Sea where food is delicious and people more alive and animated. :)
But what if genetics influences the culture. Makes one culture different than others.
No matter how one raises chimps they are not going to produce cars or make a movie.
This is a drastic example of genetics dictating a culture. I'm not saying there are such differences among nations. But if Northern Europeans are less emotional than Southerners then perhaps this can explain why Northern cultures are more stoic, orderly and utilitarian (traits that aid economy). Where south is more emotional, family oriented, fashion and food loving, suspicious and more egoistic; and likewise their economies and politics are more a messy business.
Having said that (I hope my observations are wrong), I imagine myself retiring somewhere around Mediterranean Sea where food is delicious and people more alive and animated. :)
Northern Europe has nine out of ten of the poorest countries in Europe. See http://www.aneki.com/poorest_europe.html which for some reason will not copy over.
Northern Europe has nine out of ten of the poorest countries in Europe. See http://www.aneki.com/poorest_europe.html which for some reason will not copy over.
I think that in Australia you're holding your maps upside down. :)
I think that in Australia you're holding your maps upside down. :) I suppose it all depends on where you're standing at the time ;).
The countries listed with the per capita GDP are:-
Moldova-$3,500.00; Ukraine-$7,500.00; Albania-$*,200.00; Bosnia Herzegovnia-$8,400.00; Serbia-$10,600.00; Macedonia-$10,80.00 and Montenegro-$12,000.00. And that's with our maps, right way up.
I suppose it all depends on where you're standing at the time ;).
The countries listed with the per capita GDP are:-
Moldova-$3,500.00; Ukraine-$7,500.00; Albania-$*,200.00; Bosnia Herzegovnia-$8,400.00; Serbia-$10,600.00; Macedonia-$10,80.00 and Montenegro-$12,000.00. And that's with our maps, right way up.
I suppose it all depends on where you're standing at the time ;).
The countries listed with the per capita GDP are:-
Moldova-$3,500.00; Ukraine-$7,500.00; Albania-$*,200.00; Bosnia Herzegovnia-$8,400.00; Serbia-$10,600.00; Macedonia-$10,80.00 and Montenegro-$12,000.00. And that's with our maps, right way up.
And which of these countries, you suppose, belong to Northern Europe?
And which of these countries, you suppose, belong to Northern Europe?
Sorry, you're correct. The countries I mentioned are, strictly speaking, Eastern Europe.
Sorry, you're correct. The countries I mentioned are, strictly speaking, Eastern Europe.
South-eastern, strictly speaking :).
mihaitzateo
15-12-13, 17:05
Eastern Slavs are very individualistic,compared even to Scandos,who seems to be most individualistic from Europe.
Romanians,even if Romance speakers,especially those from Moldavia,are very individualistic .
Believe or not,but being a team worker is something that is very appreciated in Scandinavia and in Great Britain.
And this (team working) brings much better results.
As for being a team worker or not,is not about genes,but about education.
Eastern Europeans are like that because of the hardships they got here.
What is weird is that Greeks are not like that,I mean individualistic.
And this individualistic attitude brings a raise in un-employment for the simple reason that people are rather putting someone they know to work more,or refuse to get more jobs,rather than employ new people.
I know these things very well,since I live in Romania.
As for Greeks and Italians,the un-employment is high because of the education.
The education they got was not one to praise work.
So you can see that in Romania and Ukraine and Russia and other pure Eastern European countries (like Belarus,Poland is not pure Eastern European mentality country) most people are willing to work,even if for low earnings and bad conditions but they do not find what.
Why?
Simple,because of individualism of others and anti-social attitude of people on high positions,who determine if someone will be hired or not.
I suspect the high individualism of Scandinavians and their anti-social attitude is not a Germanic trait,but something inherited from their Eastern neighbours,that is Baltic people and Slavic people.As for Finnic people,they seems to be different from Slavic and Baltic people.
I mean Great Britain people are well known to be one of the most tolerant and open minded people,who are not discriminating against strangers,just because they are strangers etc.
And Great Britain education is for sure mostly Germanic.
However,Germany population is not Germanic anymore,Germany was born from mixing of old Germans from there with Old Prussians,who were Baltic people and this thing is clearly shown by admixture tests.
They also seems to mixed with Slavs in significant numbers.
mihaitzateo
15-12-13, 17:10
South-eastern, strictly speaking :).
Moldavia is no way South_Eastern,they are fully Eastern.
As physical look,is very hard to distinguish between Ukrainians and Moldovans,same about Moldovans from Romania.
That is emotional intelligence. If one has high emotional intelligence but lacks empathy will use it for the purposes that you mentioned. So for eg Gandhi had high EQ but he also had empathy, that most of us would recognize it as wisdom, while Hitler and others alike (dictators) had high EQ but lacked empathy. All the leaders (in whatever category, business, political or social) have high EQs, the difference for better or for worse is in the empathy. Stephen Covey explains this perfectly in his 8th habit.
Well, if the definition empathy="knowing what others feel" holds, then empathy is a necessity to have a high EQ. But if Covey is right, then all autists should be psychopaths, but they aren't.
I hope I'll find time eventually to read some of Covey's explanations, just in case I missed something. I hope he writes something about sadists and bullies too, and whether they are empathic or high EQ or not. Because I wonder how someone could be sadist without the ability to feel his victim's misery. But again I'm a hobbyist thinker only and maybe I'm missing something. Thanks again for the literature reference.
Moldavia is no way South_Eastern,they are fully Eastern.
As physical look,is very hard to distinguish between Ukrainians and Moldovans,same about Moldovans from Romania.
Checking the longitudes, Moldavia is in the South-eastern quarter as Romania is. And I'm surprised to hear that Ukrainians resemble Romanians by physical look.
Most part of Ukraine is fully eastern though, that's true I agree.
Sorry, you're correct. The countries I mentioned are, strictly speaking, Eastern Europe.
No problem. Anyway I was loosely referring to longitudinal position, more in relative terms. Generally speaking, the more north one goes, one can find less emotional people, the more south one goes, the more emotional people are. On other hand I don't think there is any significant difference in IQ among european countries, giving same level of education.
Well, if the definition empathy="knowing what others feel" holds, then empathy is a necessity to have a high EQ. But if Covey is right, then all autists should be psychopaths, but they aren't.
I hope I'll find time eventually to read some of Covey's explanations, just in case I missed something. I hope he writes something about sadists and bullies too, and whether they are empathic or high EQ or not. Because I wonder how someone could be sadist without the ability to feel his victim's misery. Psychopaths or sadists have "reversed" empathy, a negative empathy. They don't feel compassion, but instead they feel pleasure when seeing other's misery or suffering. I suspect a faulty wiring between visual cortex and amygdala where the emotions are located in our brains.
Sadists hurt people on purpose to get pleasurable excitement, to get high, often connected to sexual one.
Autistic people hurt others accidentally because without empathy they don't know they hurt others.
I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned the most obvious cultural reason for differences between northern and southern Europe, which is religion. The northern countries are mostly protestant whereas the southern countries are mostly catholic or orthodox. Protestantism encourages independent thinking and individual initiative. At its most rigid, it can also encourage anger and selfishness, as seen in the religious right in the U.S. However, liberal protestants and agnostics/atheists from a protestant background are generally in favour of honesty and fairness, so protestant countries generally have less corruption and their people tend to favour having good social structures. Whereas a more authoritarian religious structure such as catholicism or orthodox systems seem to breed corruption and dependency, with people having strong family ties in order to survive but having far less initiative. That's my opinion, anyway.
mihaitzateo
15-12-13, 23:00
Germany is Catholic,Italy is Catholic,however,Germany is much more developed that Italy.
What is the difference?
Corruption.
Italy is very corrupt,while Germany have very few problems with corruption.
From where this corruption was inherited?
I think from Roman Empire times.
Germany is Catholic,Italy is Catholic,however,Germany is much more developed that Italy.
What is the difference?
Corruption.
Italy is very corrupt,while Germany have very few problems with corruption.
From where this corruption was inherited?
I think from Roman Empire times.
Germany is about 50/50 protestant and catholic, with the protestants more common in the more industrial north. France is nominally catholic but religion has been discouraged by government there for a long time, whereas catholicism is still very powerful in Spain, Portugal and Italy. And in the Balkans, it's divided between catholic, orthodox and moslem. If the Croats and Serbs were honest, they'd admit that they're basically the same people but Croats are catholic and Serbs are orthodox. Centralized religions make societies stagnate, IMO.
Germany is about 50/50 protestant and catholic, with the protestants more common in the more industrial north.
Actually not anymore. Today it's clearly the south which is the industrial one. Bavaria as the most strictly catholic province is second wealthiest today, right after Baden-Würtenberg, which is part-catholic. The northern protestant provinces (except Hamburg) today are almost all among the poorest. The northernmost provinces are also the most agricultural and Bremen is close to bankruptcy, even worse than most east-german towns (east Germany has a special recent history as we know).
But for the past you are right, it was the protestant north, in particular the north-east (Prussia, Saxony, Silesia) which was the most modern and industrial.
No problem. Anyway I was loosely referring to longitudinal position, more in relative terms. Generally speaking, the more north one goes, one can find less emotional people, the more south one goes, the more emotional people are. On other hand I don't think there is any significant difference in IQ among european countries, giving same level of education.
I made the often fatal mistake of taking a web site at face value.:0
mihaitzateo
16-12-13, 21:06
Germany is about 50/50 protestant and catholic, with the protestants more common in the more industrial north. France is nominally catholic but religion has been discouraged by government there for a long time, whereas catholicism is still very powerful in Spain, Portugal and Italy. And in the Balkans, it's divided between catholic, orthodox and moslem. If the Croats and Serbs were honest, they'd admit that they're basically the same people but Croats are catholic and Serbs are orthodox. Centralized religions make societies stagnate, IMO.
Republic of Ireland,which is mostly Catholic,got a higher GDP/capita than Great Britain,which is mostly Protestant.
Austria,which is also Catholic,got a very high GDP per capita.
I see that the protestant/catholic = rich/poor does not always hold, but
Republic of Ireland,which is mostly Catholic,got a higher GDP/capita than Great Britain,which is mostly Protestant.
Ireland experienced a boom bubble right before the financial crisis. Now Ireland is considered part or the "PIIGS countries".
It was actually the only time when Ireland experienced some wealth since the middle ages. Else it was much of the time europe's poorest country.
By the way, the now rich Bavaria which is very catholic was also the poorest and backward region of Germany until few decades ago.
Austria,which is also Catholic,got a very high GDP per capita.
That's true. Austria has a stable wealthy society and was an empire in the past. On the other hand, catholic Spain and Portugal were once the biggest world empires too.
Well, if the definition empathy="knowing what others feel" holds, then empathy is a necessity to have a high EQ. But if Covey is right, then all autists should be psychopaths, but they aren't.
I hope I'll find time eventually to read some of Covey's explanations, just in case I missed something. I hope he writes something about sadists and bullies too, and whether they are empathetic or high EQ or not. Because I wonder how someone could be sadist without the ability to feel his victim's misery. But again I'm a hobbyist thinker only and maybe I'm missing something. Thanks again for the literature reference.
The correct definition would be: empathy="feeling what others feel (for e.g. feeling hurt almost the same way as the other person hurts, whoever they may be"; while EQ = "ability to read emotional data in me and in others therefore being able to manipulate (manage) my feelings and of others"
We can build empathy by finding our noble goal, people that have a noble goal in their lives are empathetic.
For the autistics maybe we could start another thread to discuss the issue...
albanopolis
26-10-14, 03:58
I am afraid there could be some genetic predisposition for the Balkan countries at least. The Balkans so far have not been able to employ their own people. Lack the work ethics and desire to work.
The anecdote that circulates in Albania is like this: A German goes to the library and stays 5 Hours inside, an Italian goes inside comes around but does not stay, an Albanian looks from the window who is inside.
Been small countries is a big minus as well. Inadequate schooling system. No country has been enriched by agriculture alone. Time will tell.
Been small countries is a big minus as well. Inadequate schooling system. No country has been enriched by agriculture alone. Time will tell.
Actually it is easier to manage a small country than a large one. In Europe the most developed, educated and peaceful countries are typically small (Switzerland, Austria, Benelux, Scandinavian countries, Finland, Ireland).
I am afraid there could be some genetic predisposition for the Balkan countries at least. The Balkans so far have not been able to employ their own people. Lack the work ethics and desire to work.
The anecdote that circulates in Albania is like this: A German goes to the library and stays 5 Hours inside, an Italian goes inside comes around but does not stay, an Albanian looks from the window who is inside.
Been small countries is a big minus as well. Inadequate schooling system. No country has been enriched by agriculture alone. Time will tell.
It might be weather related, in harsh cold climates or deserts you have to be somewhat driven and motivated in order to survive (you better take things seriously when it is -20 C and you have no proper shelter). The same goes for places with extremely high population density and competition (ex:Japan). However if you want to go the genetic route, someone might speculate that these "motivated" people might have a problem relaxing and having fun, or making real friendships (since it is always about stuff...). In places like equatorial Africa, you can just wear a leaf and live in a tent all year around.
albanopolis
26-10-14, 13:43
Actually it is easier to manage a small country than a large one. In Europe the most developed, educated and peaceful countries are typically small (Switzerland, Austria, Benelux, Scandinavian countries, Finland, Ireland).
There is a social laboratory to test the genetic deficiency of people from around the world.
That is USA. All people start from equally social conditions to better themselves. The only one who have distinguished themselves are the Jewish. My observation is that South Europeans distinguish themselves in arts and sports. Hollywood without Southerns is dead.
Southern Europeans have the same share in percentage terms of rich, poor and middle class people as Northers.
Small Nordic countries economies function as a complementary of bigger ones. They have started to feel the disadvantage of being small. Finland was once the biggest producer of phones. Lack of manpower led to shortages of engineers and eventually Nokia went bust. Many other industries will follow. So did Sweden's car building industry. Irish had not been for the financial aid from Britain would have been on the boats by now, on the way to Boston.Nothing has gone bust in Germany. So, yes being small its a disadvantage in economic terms.
Romanians over these forums badmouthing Southern Europeans/Balkanites and especially Italians, make me laugh hard. Is the level of self hate among these self declared "Romans" really so high?
Do I really need to post some links about how Romanians behave in Western Europe and everywhere they go? LOL.
albanopolis
26-10-14, 17:43
Romanians over these forums badmouthing Southern Europeans/Balkanites and especially Italians, make me laugh hard. Is the level of self hate among these self declared "Romans" really so high?
Do I really need to post some links about how Romanians behave in Western Europe and everywhere they go? LOL.
They are Balkans as well. Like other Balkan people the steal, cheat and are lazy.
But to their credit they have good taste for art and architecture. Bucharest is the jewel of the east.
O'RLY? You don't really know Romanians on the internetwebz. Now they think that they are Central-Eastern Europeans because they live North of the Danube river. I know it's funny and at the same time they are always badmouthing their southern neighbours like Bulgarians and Greeks. There must be something wrong in Romania.
Roma-nia is such an advanced country.
Corruption in Europe.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72724000/gif/_72724992_eu_corruption_labels_624map(3).gif
Investments in innovation
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/images/innovation-performance-2014.jpg
"Wherever you go around the world, you will always meet English and Dutch people. They have travel in their blood. The more out-of-the-beaten-track and adventurous the destination, the higher their proportion to other nationalities. I talk from experience, having myself travelled to about 50 countries. "
They also have high disposable incomes and relatively long annual holidays comparing to most others, including people from the US.
"I haven't met a single southern European backpacker in Australia and very few in India or Southeast Asia."
I have travelled to more than 70 countries due to my line of work. During the golden (bubble) years of economic growth in Greece (2000-2009), I was impressed by the number of Greek travellers I met in some of the world's most remote destinations. 5 years into the crisis, my compatriots have returned to their traditional holiday destinations, in other words the Greek islands and the mountainous villages of the mainland. There is a very strong correlation between foreign holidays and economics.
It is not a coincindence that throughout our history we have been seafarers and up to this date shipping is one of our biggest industries, therefore I seriously doubt that we lack the urge to travel and take risks, despite being southern Europeans.
As for individuallity and enterpreneurship, although it is hard to measure, I believe that the number of SMEs in an economy is a good indicator. It is interesting that SMEs are the workhorse of the economy both in non neighbouring countries such as Greece and Germany, while countries in between differ.
In any case, I do not think this is a genetic issue. I am more inclined to believe that it has to do with social, cultural and historical reasons. For instance, former communist countries show greater collectivism. The difference between West and East Germany is a good example.
What is this, the 1930's?
Maciamo I doubt it very much, social-cultural circumstances and the genepool, looks not close to me. Especially because the genetic differences within a region are mostly bigger then between regions... Of course some phenotypes can be more dominant in a region. But the fact that I've blond hair doesn't make me an entrepreneur, does it?
When it comes to individualistic, entrepreneur behavior I can see a loose connection with the free independent peasant of Germanic, Northwestern Europe. The churl in Old English, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churl
But look at Amsterdam one of the hatchery's of modern, entrepreneur capitalism. Due to the Dutch revolt (1568-1648), Amsterdam became a safe haven and free mind spirit (before that not very obvious it was a small fisherman's town, very catholic devoted, pilgrims place). But due to a diversity of genes, Sefaridim (and ex-Sefaridim like Spinoza) from Southern Europe, Protestant and Catholic Westfalians and Rhinelanders, Anabaptist from anywhere in Europe, Calvinist from France and Belgium, you name it....al with a very big entrepreneur element within it!. New Amsterdam euhm York inherited this culture and made it over the top! But certainly not due to a particular gene pool.
Look at Wallonië in the nineteenth century very industrialized, one of the wealthiest places in Europe, more advanced than Flanders. Nowadays certainly not, but the people are more or less the same....And in France is Nord Pas de Calais the most "Germanic" of France but not the most entrepreneurial.
So I tend to say the gene pool has not a close connection with things as unemployment and entrepreneurship. If then nowadays the other way around: the more prospered, the more wealth, the more gene diversity (let's the take the gene pool of Sillicon Valley ;)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/11/powerful-indians-silicon-valley
PaleoRevenge
04-12-16, 23:09
I'm surprised someone like Maciano would ponder on such question, given that he takes establishment positions on nearly everything. Genes clearly matter. An obvious one, no has asked, and I'll be the first: how come all the scientific breakthroughs seem to be have brought to us by men who belong to haplogroup I?
An obvious one, no has asked, and I'll be the first: how come all the scientific breakthroughs seem to be have brought to us by men who belong to haplogroup I?
How did you come to that conclusion?
I was reading in The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/10/entrepreneurship?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ambitionignited) that "many of society's ills, from economic stagnation to poor social mobility, could be solved by creating a more entrepreneurial society." The timing couldn't be better as I had been thinking about that very issue lately. Why is it that northern European countries, especially Germanic ones, have for so long had a lower unemployment rate than other countries, regardless of the economic climate ? I believe this indeed has something to do with the fact that northern European people are a particularly entrepreneurial bunch. Not only are they less afraid of taking risks, they are also more individualistic and independent than almost any other cultural group on the planet. Northern Europeans are therefore more likely to be self-employed or to start their own company.
Eight years ago I wrote about individualism vs collectivism (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/culture-shock-137/japanese-more-individualist-collectivist-4391/) and the five cultural dimensions (http://www.geert-hofstede.com/) used by IBM psychologist Geert Hofstede to compare working cultures around the globe. The two most interesting dimensions are individualism and uncertainty avoidance.
Individualism is a trait shared by ethnically Celtic and Germanic countries. For instance, North Italy (Celtic) is very individualistic, while South Italy (Greek) is far more collectivist. All non-European cultures are strongly collectivist. Collectivist-minded people like to feel part of a group and are much more likely to become employees or civil servants. That is why in a country like Japan (Asian therefore collectivist), as developed as it is, people will almost always choose to work for a company (the bigger the better) rather than be self-employed. Even professionals like doctors, lawyers and architects prefer to work in shared offices or firms than have their own office as they would in northern Europe.
Uncertainty avoidance is a slightly more difficult concept to grasp. People with a high uncertainty avoidance will take all the measures they can to limit risks and have things under control at all time, trying to foresee any eventuality. They would plan a trip well in advance, booking their hotels ahead and knowing exactly where they would be going. Ideally they prefer to travel in organised tours rather than by themselves. It's safer and more comforting. Individuals with a low uncertainty avoidance will take a last minute flight without knowing exactly where they would be going and adjusting their plans on the spot.
Even legal systems reflect the level of uncertainty avoidance. Roman and Napoleonic legal system (high uncertainty avoidance) trying to codify every possible infringement of the law. In contrast, English common law is much more compact and flexible, privileging a case-by-case approach at the judge's discretion.
Like for collectivism, the "default" (or ancestral) human nature is a high uncertainty avoidance. According to Hofstede's scores (http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php), only the Scandinavians, Brits, Irish, Chinese and Vietnamese have a low uncertainty avoidance (the lowest being the Danes). There is surely a genetic factor too, since neighbouring populations (the Dutch, Finns, Southeast Asians) have an average score, and all other nationalities have a high score (even the Germans, who are more Celtic or Slavic in that regard).
When I was a student, I backpacked for a few months around Australia, and I was quite baffled by the fact that out of the hundreds of other backpackers I met, about 40% were English (not British as I only met one Scot and no Welsh), 30% were Dutch (but not a single Fleming), 20% were Scandinavian (mostly Danish), and the remaining 10% covered all other nationalities (mostly Japanese, German, Irish and French with a few occasional American, Canadian). Wherever you go around the world, you will always meet English and Dutch people. They have travel in their blood. The more out-of-the-beaten-track and adventurous the destination, the higher their proportion to other nationalities. I talk from experience, having myself travelled to about 50 countries.
I haven't met a single southern European backpacker in Australia and very few in India or Southeast Asia. I think that tells a lot about the cultural difference between northern and southern Europe. Interestingly, England and the Netherlands have the lowest combined scores for uncertainty avoidance and collectivism. In other words, English and Dutch people are individualistic, independent risk-takers. It is no surprise that they are so entrepreneurial too, and that they spawned vast colonial empires developed almost solely by private entrepreneurs (East & West India Companies) as opposed to state-sponsored expeditions like in the case of France, Spain, Germany or Japan.
Why do you think it is that English colonies fared so well ? Because more people migrated there to populate them ? Yes, but why ? British people having a low uncertainty avoidance, more individualistic and entrepreneurial, they were less afraid of leaving everything behind and migrate to the new colonies to start a new life. They were more successful at it too. In contrast, the Spaniards conquered the Americas in search for gold, silver and precious stones. They were motivated by greed, then usually came back to Spain to spend the fortune they had acquired. Others just went to convert the pagans (religious zeal). The most ethnically European former Spanish colonies today are Uruguay and Argentina, which both have big non-Iberian communities (French, Italian, German), mostly from 20th century immigration (far less adventurous than in past centuries). French colonies were almost only settled by the King's soldiers to protect the state's interests, but didn't attract a lot of immigrants. English colonies were not commissioned by the state, by individual enterprises, and each colony was completely independent from the next.
The Dutch colonisation of South Africa is the one rare other example of a major European colony founded by a group of people just leaving their homeland of their own will to create a new colony of their own without seeking fortune or thinking of extending their country's dominion. Actually the Dutch, Danes and Swedes all had minor colonies in North America that were all later absorbed by the mass of British migrants. This included New Amsterdam (now called New York), and what would become the states of New Jersey and Delaware (New Sweden).
I am convinced that entrepreneurialism, like individualism and uncertainty avoidance, is deeply rooted is one's genes. One cannot choose if he/she is individualistic or not, no more than he/she can choose if he is a risk-taker or not. The ugly truth behind this is that countries where the gene pool has a high percentage of entrepreneur-minded, independent ("self-employed-minded") people will naturally have a lower unemployment in equal circumstances compared to a country of collectivist-minded people with a high fear of risk. This is undoubtedly why northern European countries as well as Canada and Australia, founded mostly by risk-taking entrepreneurs from northern Europe, will always cope better in the adversity than southern European countries (or most non-Western countries). When the economy is bad, employees and civil servants get fired and less people are hired to replace those who retire. You can't lose your job if you are self-employed. You don't have to worry about being hired if you start own your business.
Instead of waiting for a company or the government to recruit them, the 50% of unemployed Spanish youths should try doing something useful and start their own businesses, instead of blaming society or the economy. Unless they just can't because their genes is preventing them, riddling them with fear. But who is to blame then ?I usually like your work. But in this case - I have to tend to disagree. Everyone of every nation is different. I once heard the claim that people with haplogroup I2 have unusually lower IQ's. While that may be true; it does not necessarily mean they are dumb.
But I suppose, some haplogroups are genetic markers that show predetermination for genetic diseases and such. Mitochondrial. Could that be the reason why older Y haplogroups are dying out? Such as haplogroup C? In the future, it seems I2 will become about almost as rare as G2a or something. Bosnia carries it the highest; and nobody is having children.
I'm surprised someone like Maciano would ponder on such question, given that he takes establishment positions on nearly everything. Genes clearly matter. An obvious one, no has asked, and I'll be the first: how come all the scientific breakthroughs seem to be have brought to us by men who belong to haplogroup I?
Would you care to elaborate on that? Which scientists are known to belong to haplogroup I? There are lots of politicians, writers and singers among hg I, but to my knowledge there isn't any famous scientist in the list yet.
Famous scientists/tech entrepreneurs whose haplogroup is known are either R1b (Copernicus, Darwin, James Wilson, Craig Venter), Q1b (Oppenheimer), J2b1 (Anthony Pople) or E1b1b (Harvey, Einstein, Steven Pinker, Larry Page). We only know the Y-DNA of a few inventors: the Wright brothers (E1b1b) and Nikola Tesla (R1a). Of course we only know the haplogroups of only a tiny fraction of renowned scientists and tech people, so it's probably not representative.
I usually like your work. But in this case - I have to tend to disagree. Everyone of every nation is different. I once heard the claim that people with haplogroup I2 have unusually lower IQ's. While that may be true; it does not necessarily mean they are dumb.
Who claimed that I2 people had lower IQ's? I2 is one of the rare haplogroups defined by a mutation known to affect brain function (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33836-Estimating-the-role-of-the-Y-Chromosome-in-brain-function), but the I2 people I know tend to be intelligent and particularly methodical and meticulous. I have I2 relatives who are engineers and a maths professor at a renowned university.
Here is a graph of entrepreneur growth/decline in US
https://www.bls.gov/bdm/entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship.htm
and a 2017 article
https://www.inc.com/leigh-buchanan/us-entrepreneurship-reaches-record-highs.html
I think any genetic signal for traits like entrepreneurship will get buried by things like a nations legal system, religion, culture, recent history etc. When it comes to the north-south divide, the link with welfare systems (https://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html) seem much stronger. Basically, a good welfare system that lets you pick yourself up and try again after failure (and I believe most new businesses fail) without massive consequences for your family encouranges entrepreneurship far more than a setting where you and your family may be ruined for life by failure.
There are presumably other factors affecting entrepreneurship, but social mobility do seem to be the highest in places with strong welfare systems (https://www.oecd.org/centrodemexico/medios/44582910.pdf) and lowest in places like the US with weaker setups.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.