Economy Are some countries doomed to high unemployment due to their genetic pool ?

I was reading in The Economist 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 and the five cultural dimensions 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, 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 ?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 :LOL: ). 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 :LOL: ).
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. (y)

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.
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 220815 times.

Back
Top