“Yet many languages also have words that English speakers might think of as “basic” emotions — love, hate, anger, fear, sadness, happiness. Early theories, influenced by Charles Darwin and pegged to shared biological structures in humans, suggest there are certain universal emotions that serve as the source material for all others, as primary colors might be blended to create many new shades.
Universalism is bullshit. All shades. Not All ___ is a derailment, attempt to enable, dismiss or deflect or simple result of a category error.
But just as later work has suggested that different cultures do not always categorize color in the same ways,
Different rods/cones plus evolution.
there’s a growing understanding that even those supposedly “primary” emotions may hold their own meanings and nuances in different cultures that aren’t directly translatable.“
Apply Occam to this. People are not cogs, Rousseau!
Language is also genetic. Really. This is known.
Preview of what they’ll “discover” next, trying to get ahead of the net?
Humanity, as we WEIRD individualists think of it, is also non-uniform throughout the species. Diversity aka variation exists, a scale of 0-100, if you will. Basically? Some races are crueler than others, simply put. Others less sadistic, even to their own people, animals, children, elderly etc. Science is catching up. We are not, as we’ll be told, dehumanising THEM, they dehumanise themselves, they hurt one another, what better treatment can WE expect?
Civilization is a combination of simple factors and conditions inc. IQ (organism and national), honesty (low cultural corruption*), genetic individualism, K-select breeding and rearing and finally, low sadism (antisociality in the population, little pathology, especially sexual sadism). When “high trust” is required historically (the current PC code for this) the West succeeds because of its low racial sadism (and resultant bias towards justice) and tendency to punish/cull predators (civil unrest) instead of reward with money, rape victims, goats, whatever. High culture is produced by ALL these factors, you can’t make exceptions for your own hedonism.
It looks like collectivism but it isn’t – it doesn’t hide personal responsibility or agency behind Muh Group Card (like the men who marry in China and are allowed to cheat, two-faced “duty”) or the need for virtue as The Other Guy’s Problem. It isn’t cruel or cowardly in secret, it’s openly FAIR.Cruelty is the key sign of an inferior mind.
The SJWs don’t name me for that reason. The science is coming out.
m-m-m-muh appeal to authority?
*So neither China nor Russia will run jack shit. They cannot innovate in a vacuum. The kitten-crushers of Japan and China make shitty parents and military generals. Honour culture isn’t a parade, it’s bravery. It’s sacrifice.
Over the last 30 years, social psychologists have documented an impressive array of psychocultural differences. For example, in East Asian cultures the self tends to be defined in relationship to the group, or collective, whereas in Western cultures (e.g. Europe and the nations of the former British Commonwealth) there is a greater proclivity for the self to be viewed as unique, stable and independent of the social group (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). A critical question raised by such findings is how do such cultural differences arise? Why do some groups tend towards collectivism, while others tend towards individualism?
Answering this complex question will require integrating many levels of analysis including ecological, sociological, demographic, economic, psychological and biological. A helpful means of integrating these diverse influences is to adopt a cultural neuroscience perspective (Chiao and Ambady, 2007), because the brain is the central hub where each of these influences converge. Accordingly, genes affecting brain function are likely to influence the adoption and formation of cultural norms and, conversely, culture may also shape the expression and selection of genes.
The second part is like saying horses evolved to run in front of carts.
People build on their homeland. Look at architecture. Anglo is quite specific, Germanic, France/Italian/Romantic again, specific. That’s just WEST Europe.
I know some nerd in the future will write their dissertation on how you could predict multiculturalism’s failure by America’s inability to agree on one architectural design aesthetic and I hope I’m here to read it.
Although the study of psychological genetics is in its infancy and much is still to be learned, in this article, we present data suggesting that variation in several genes known to affect brain function appear to influence the degree to which one is emotionally responsive to the social environment. We then extend this social sensitivity hypothesis to the cultural realm and present evidence indicating that it may be of relevance to the cultural construct of individualism–collectivism. Although the vast majority of genetic variation exists within populations (Lewontin, 1972), a measurable proportion of human genetic variation does exist between populations of different ancestral origins. Therefore, we examine below the relationship between population differences in cultural orientation and the relative frequency of several genetic variants thought to affect sensitivity to the social environment. In addition, we also explore potential psychological processes that may explain the effect.
They’ll catch up.
Cultural Neuroscience chapter
see page 3 or 239
“The neuroscience of culture versus race”
Cultural neuroscience: parsing universality and diversity across levels of analysis (2007)
Stop straining, sub-species (better known as race) is as real as species and genus.
Arguing for Darwin in biology is common sense, like men and women EXIST (sexual dimorphism).
Even the Creationists don’t question that.
So again, for the cheap seats:
no magic dirt, no magic equal economic cogs and no, cuckservatives, you can’t talk Asians into “acting white” and voting for small gov. They don’t even view themselves as an individual person. Stop projecting libertarian 115IQ white guy reasoning onto the entire planet. You are wrong.
And whatever their upbringing, foreigners NEVER share exactly the same culture.
Even a host culture of a hundred plus years, like blacks had in America to “integrate”.
Never gonna happen.
They’re not like a petri blank.
Fuck, look at Chinatown. In American cities or London, it’s more alike than the host nations.
Over a hundred years. What’s your excuse?
[White culture is also the easiest and nicest to integrate into, so WTF.]
Individualism, Culture and Entrepreneurial Opportunities*
brb altering history
The present paper evaluates the effect of living in an individualistic society on
entrepreneurial opportunities, using cross-country data from the GEDI. Individualism
is one of the five cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede (2001) and it is considered by intercultural psychologists the main dimension of cultural variation. For individualism is a cultural trait that emphasizes freedom and rewards one’s own personal
achievements, it increases the propensity to open new businesses and realize own ideas,
despite the possibility of failure. So as to prevent reverse causality between individualism and entrepreneurial activity, we use the frequency of blood types and other
genetic data as instruments. The data show a positive and highly significant effect of individualism on entrepreneurship, even after controlling for education, religion, fertility, unemployment, the ease of doing business, networking, among others.
Look at ‘lil Venezuela down there, I wonder what will happen to them?
This is why Trump doing the trade war is a genius move. THIS.
In countries with more individualistic cultural characteristics, they have a predominance of individuals seeking potentially better opportunities to conduct an initial business, as well as characteristics with a greater perception of entrepreneurial opportunity. Similarly, Figure 5 suggests that countries with
more individualistic cultures often have greater opportunities to start a business. As for example, Canada, United States, Great Britain and Australia. The ten countries with the highest GEI index in 2017 were: the USA, Switzerland, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands.
I wonder what THEY have in common.
1950s GDP: not race (only) but cultural individualism.
Therefore, it measures the quality of entrepreneurship, as we are concerned with the quality of entrepreneurship: the entrepreneur driven by opportunities that generate commercial success. The definition of entrepreneurship that we will adopt is related to job creation and growth through innovation.
aka GDP, real ingroup gains
No, Asians can’t take over capitalism. That can literally never happen.
They’re collectivists, they get crony capitalism, they’ll fuck it up.
We just have to survive that.
I wonder what this figure indicates…
You’ve got me.
Yes, this is definitely my opinion.
My educated opinion.
As you can see, I am very jelly.
Thus, the most appropriate model for the analysis of the effect of entrepreneurial activity on individualism is that of column (5).
Considering the above-identified situation of a possible endogeneity between the variables, instrumental fractional variables were included for the econometric analysis. This process requires variables that are related to individualism, but not to entrepreneurial activity.
This hypothesis is sufficient so that the causal relation can be established in the proper direction. Thus, for individualism we use the blood distance of Mahalanobis and the pathogenic genes according to Gorodnichenko and Roland (2017). In table 2, the individualism and each possibility of instrument: distM-UK and mean of pathogens, which are, respectively, Mahalanobis blood distance between the country in England and the mean of the presence of the nine genes pathogens considered relevant to Murray’s individualist collectivist analysis: leishmaniasis, trypanosomes, malaria, schistosomiasis, filaria, leprosy,dengue, typhus and tuberculosis.
My opinion, clearly.
I magically altered their blood, to lie.
I can do that.
The relationship is negative, because it suggests that the closer to the entrepreneurial country, the more individualistic the culture will be.
Table 3 includes some more control variables, particularly related to institutions and their long-run effect on development. Precisely due to their persistence, it is important to separate the effect of culture from institutions as good as possible, although this it is a difficult matter and still an ample field of research (Gorodnichenko and Roland 2017; Spolaore and Wacziarg 2013)
Muh opinion, clearly.
I’m just jealous of cultures that enslave their children to make my phone.
Table 4 repeats our preferred estimation, the fractional probit instrumental variable model,
for a number of subsamples. On the one hand, the sample is divided into countries that
experienced European colonization and those that did not. The former may have suffered a mixture of cultures that is not captured by the genetic data. Therefore, if any, we expect
the effect of individualism to be stronger and more precise in the latter subsample.
To sum up, we find remarkably few differences in the magnitude of the individualism index
across the estimations in tables 3 and 4. In fact, the point estimate is not statistically
different from the baseline regressions in table 2 and in all of the seven estimation do we obtain a positive and significant effect of individualism on the opportunity to start a business.
The argument for muh civic nationalism, muh brain drain immigration is a pack of lies.
They are not the same as us.
The present paper evaluated the hypothesis that individualism can influence the entrepreneurial activity, accounting for cross-country differences in education, religion, fertility, unemployment, ease of opening a company and networking. The data shows a strong and remarkably robust relationship between living in an individualistic culture and entrepreneurship.
Things libertarians pretend to give a shit about.
The West is WEIRD – nobody else.
Although one should be careful in interpreting our results as causal, our estimates of fractional probit instrumental variable approach suggests a plausible interpretation of this relationship. We explored other potentially important channels in determining entrepreneurial activity.
The effect may potentially be confounded by geography, climate conditions, or through European colonization, as well as through persistent institutions, such as the risk of expropriation. In addition, the influence of the culture dimension of individualism was tested separately for each group of countries belonging to the OECD or not. It was concluded that the effects remained positive and significant, confirming the validity of the results and of the instruments.
Finally, the perceptions of the opportunity to start a business are different from society
to society, so the origin of these differences and their influences is important. Thus, this
article thus complements the studies on entrepreneurship (Pinillos and Reyes (2011), Liñán
and Fernandez-Serrano (2014), Dheer (2017), Doepke and Zilibotti (2014), Laskovaia et al.
(2017) and Nikolaev et al. (2018).
and the spread is nice and geographical — west to east/north to south: the anglos and the dutch (and are the scandinavians there? i can’t tell), my long-term outbreeders, are the least corrupt — then, working upwards on the chart (i.e. towards more corrupt) you’ve got the belgians and french and spanish — crossing the line into the more corrupt zone you start to have poland and hungary and the czech republic, places on the border of the hajnal line and the medieval outbreeding project — and then you get up to italy and the ukraine and russia.
east asia is, of course, interesting with singapore, hong kong, and japan being some of the least corrupt, and china being way up by corrupt italy. need to work on figuring out east asia one of these days! (~_^)
Nobody looks at Asia.
We know about Africa and Europe, we all know at this point. For about a century, we have known.
The interesting thing now is Asia/Europe. Are you all too scared to look?
Look at voting patterns, this is important.
so, there’s definitely a connection between intelligence and corruption, but that’s not the whole story, otherwise china and russia and italy and korea wouldn’t be very corrupt at all.
maybe their IQ scores are as real as their college transcripts?
“How an industry helps Chinese students cheat their way into and through U.S. colleges”
Muh model minority.
Cheating is illegal BTW. It’s fraud and theft from the worthy applicants who lost out (zero sum).
Teachers help too: racketeering.
one thing that the chinese, russians, and italians have in common (don’t know much about the koreans) is a longer history of inbreeding as compared to the english and the dutch (see mating patterns series below ↓ in left-hand column). the awesome epigone did find a correlation (0.44) between consanguinity and corruption, but like i said then, i’m betting that the correlation would be stronger if we could calculate something like degree+length-of-time inbreeding.
All trader nations. Merchants. Former merchant empires.
– The purpose of this paper is to study ethics, values and cross-cultural differences in China, Mexico or the United States. Three distinct and unique nations, the USA, Mexico and China, have different political structures, historical backgrounds and economical systems. While each of these nations can be considered an integral part to the world economy, each nation has their own distinct ethics, values and culture which serve as the backbone of the particular region. To be successful in international business, knowledgeable as an expatriate and culturally or ethically aware of key nations in the global market, individuals need to have researched information pertaining to the ethics, cultures and values of the USA, Mexico or China to blend in and succeed with the foreign cultural environment.”
PDF is available to view.
Business articles on cross-cultural differences tend to have fewer paywalls.
I have noted the Marquardt mask before and the frequent misconceptions about it. I glossed over one valid criticism because I couldn’t find the data on hand at the time and didn’t want to say ‘just trust me’. #dodgyAF
I’m not going to insult anyone because that’s for people who lack empirical proof. I never met someone who chose to be ugly and we cannot help what we are born.
I’m not going to make cross-comparisons because that would be mean and likely biased to certain ascribed values.
Instead, this is how they vary by pure mathematics from the universal template for the human species.
There are only female masks and examples here and I do admit there needs to be equal research on male beauty. Please, believe I want this as much as the next woman.
Here are the European, Asian and African variations.
Try to claim ‘cultural standards’ now, chewing on humble pie.
European example, frontal/anterior view.
Description given, italics mine because ‘slightly’ on this scale is huge: “EUROPEAN VARIATION FROM RF MASK Slightly vertically thin upper and lower lips Flat eyebrow (very little arch) Slightly wider nose Lateral border of the face slightly wider than the Mask Possible: Narrow eyes, longer vertical chin, longer nose.”
For example comparison, here’s the Asian prototype. A blind man could feel the difference. Yellow fever is creepier than White fever because Asian women resemble children, with faces most like babies (see, bust size, band size is fairly objective) whereas European women tend to resemble teenagers.
Description given, italics mine: “ASIAN VARIATION FROM RF MASK Medial epicanthic fold Lateral epicanthic fold Lateral border of the face significantly wider than the Mask Eye brows slightly superior to that of the Mask with shorter tails Slightly wider nose and nostrils (nasal ala and nares extend laterally) Superiorly positioned nasal columella creating a longer upper lip.”
Note: there are differences and the legal contrivance of a portmanteau ‘Caucasian’ is a myth based on geography (see the MRH), there is as much distinctiveness as between, say, European and African. As with all Asians, if you split by the demographic of sex as well, there would be greatly reduced sexual dimorphism (the men and women look more alike than Europeans by the same token comparison). This explains the great lengths the cultures go to, to distinguish themselves (makeup and what I and others consider fake femininity).
Further note: nobody meets the universal human standard. Nobody. This isn’t a point of so-called white supremacy, but white raced-women tend to conform to more of it on average, by chance.
Bear in mind, facial beauty is a reliable indicator of Darwinian fitness (see The Mating Mind) and positively, quite strongly correlates to IQ. That’s right – hot people are smarter too. The smart thing to do in an age that despises intelligence is to hide it.
Why don’t I make more scholarly posts?
1. The data isn’t collected to parse. 2. The data is suppressed (publication bias, left in the metaphorical drawer). 3. It’s behind a paywall or similarly hidden from sharing, meaning you’d have to trust my word and discussion, being less reliable and a general waste of everyone’s time. 4. These posts are literally my least popular but the most true. C’est la vie, mon amis.
What am I forced to do? Post gifs for every occasion and go under-appreciated.
This is from wikipedia but it so succinctly explains the problem you must forgive me.
During World War II, anthropologist Margaret Mead was working in Britain for the British Ministry of Information and later for the U.S.Office of War Information, delivering speeches and writing articles to help the American soldiers better understand the British civilians, and vice versa. She observed in the flirtations between the American soldiers and British women a pattern of misunderstandings regarding who is supposed to take which initiative. She wrote of the Americans, “The boy learns to make advances and rely upon the girl to repulse them whenever they are inappropriate to the state of feeling between the pair”, as contrasted to the British, where “the girl is reared to depend upon a slight barrier of chilliness… which the boys learn to respect, and for the rest to rely upon the men to approach or advance, as warranted by the situation.” This resulted, for example, in British women interpreting an American soldier’s gregariousness as something more intimate or serious than he had intended.
Western nations have emerged in an environment of limited resources and relentless population pressure, and this has to a large degree determined the way in which they respond when they are offended. For quite a long time, while centralized authority was weak, conflicts were settled through bloody conflict, and even a minor affront could cause former friends to become instant adversaries and draw their swords. This is because it was an environment in which standing your ground was key to survival.
In contrast, Russia emerged as a nation in an environment of almost infinite, although mostly quite diffuse, resources. It also drew from the bounty of the trade route that led from the Vikings to the Greeks, which was so active that Arab geographers believed that there was a salt-water strait linking the Black Sea with the Baltic, whereas the route consisted of rivers with a considerable amount of portage. In this environment, it was important to avoid conflict, and people who would draw their swords at a single misspoken word were unlikely to do well in it……
I love comparisons of cross-cultural difference, it’s like a God’s eye view.