Thread: Cultural Differences- what are they?

While it is true that there are cultural differences, depending on where we are historically and taking into account the effects that religion and politics etc have on behaviour, does culture affect things like: compassion, generosity, sense of humour, courage, empathy etc?

I say NOT.

If culture did effect the levels of those things listed above then one could pinpoint those countries and cultures that had those qualities in greater or lesser abundance quite easily. It could be measured and observed.

Consider for example a culture you think of as 'backward' and 'deficient' in those qualities. Then consider that YOU were born into that culture,
how different would you be to how you are now? Would you be 'less' generous, sympathetic, compassionate, and humorous? Would you be more?

I say Humans are not 'different' based on where they are born. They are not genetically different. Their DNA is entirely the same. The land we lie on does not dictate human nature. I guess this is another nature V nurture debate.

I had this conversation recently on another forum and the respondent missed the point of my post and went into various cultures belief systems and how bizarre the things those other countries believe in are. I pointed out to him that as an American, he shared turf with the following: Scientologists, alien abductee support groups, 'vampires are real' cults, witches coverns etc. Then there are those who practice strange (to me at least) sexual practices, such as wearing oxygen restricting face masks while being spanked and almost dying while having sex. Also isn't America home to the most serial killers? Or perhaps that is the UK? We have our fair share of strange beliefs and practices too.

So, in conclusion, how are we different again to other cultures with strange beliefs and practices except that we don't understand them and are tolerant or even ignorant of our own.

Humans are the same in that they are susceptible to believing all manner of things. They are susceptible to media influence and of course the influences of their parenting, peers and education. Some are less susceptible to these influences than others and others more so. This applies worldwide. There are extremists of one sort or another in every country. Because quite simply, people populate every country.

The land you stand on in itself is not responsible, human nature is.

The question I asked is relating not to beliefs but to matters of the soul. Compassion, humour, empathy, kindness. Do you believe that your culture has a monopoly on these qualities?

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

If culture did effect the levels of those things listed above then one could pinpoint those countries and cultures that had those qualities in greater or lesser abundance quite easily. It could be measured and observed.
...
The question I asked is relating not to beliefs but to matters of the soul.

Ah, but can matters of the SOUL be measured and observed? Until a soul becomes observable and testable it is not a matter for science or scientists to say one way or another. It remains a matter of opinion for anyone who cares to discuss it.

Along the same lines, you can't really say whether or not "compassion" and "generosity" are quantifiable characteristics until you have really defined what these things are. How "compassionate" is a person living in a caste system culture who is kind and loving to members of his own caste but ignores and avoids members of a lower caste? How "compassionate" is a person who does favors for their friends but steps over homeless people sitting in the street asking for change? Or is compassion like empathy, is it feeling sorry for other people in bad situations? In that case, both people may be highly compassionate, but simply do not act upon their compassion for one reason or another. But then, how would you know that they were compassionate, if they never did much to show it?

I agree that all humans are at their core very much the same - 99.9% similarity of DNA. I think that most of the characteristics that you listed - compassion, generosity, courage, empathy - are basic social mechanisms that we are all equipped with. As a social creature these things are how we build relationships and forge our way through human society. But the purposes to which these mechanisms are put will depend on the culture to which the individual belongs. I would say both people in my above example express compassion, but they primarily express it to those with whom they desire to build a relationships. Thus a man in a traditional Islamic culture is more likely to show compassion to other men who share his religion than he is to women, or to members of other religions. In that culture, Islamic men are the members with the most power and influence.

In other words, I think that whether or not we all have compassion is not a very important issue. We all have that capability, and I don't argue it. But the choice of where you express compassion and where you don't has real life effects on people in the world. The fact that Islamic extremists do not show compassion to members of other religions led them to kill thousands of otherwise innocent people. The fact that white slave owners did not show as much compassion to black people as they did to other white people - well, that's what made them slave owners. Culture and belief may be to blame for where compassion is placed, but that doesn't negate the strength of their influence.

Originally Posted by paralith

Thus a man in a traditional Islamic culture is more likely to show compassion to other men who share his religion than he is to women, or to members of other religions. In that culture, Islamic men are the members with the most power and influence.

In other words, I think that whether or not we all have compassion is not a very important issue. We all have that capability, and I don't argue it. But the choice of where you express compassion and where you don't has real life effects on people in the world. The fact that Islamic extremists do not show compassion to members of other religions led them to kill thousands of otherwise innocent people. The fact that white slave owners did not show as much compassion to black people as they did to other white people - well, that's what made them slave owners. Culture and belief may be to blame for where compassion is placed, but that doesn't negate the strength of their influence.

The lack of compassion as expressed above can easily be found IN EVERY culture on the planet, which just brings us back to once again being the same. Your sentiments are otherwise very similar to my own.

What I disagree with is your selection.

You chose Islam extremists to discuss lack of compassion to those outside their group. What about the IRA and how they treated people outside their group? Or Americans and how they treated the Indian. Or Israelies and how they treat Palestinians.

Note, there is a HUGE difference with my examples in that I am identifying an entire culture your example actually took a 'minority' which equates to little more than what would be a 'cult' in America. Islam extremists are very few and a tiny minority. They DO NOT represent Islamic culture and are not supported by those who properly follow the Islamic faith. If you believe it is any different then you are been brainwahsed by the media machine which wants you to think muslim extremist = muslim, which is not true. Unless of course Waco = American?

Also you made a couple of erros re Islam itself.
Islam is one of the few religions in the world that allows them to marry other religions. They can marry Jews/Christian etc . So they are tolerant of other religions. They also (in my experience) have no problem with other cultures, as seen by the way they have integrated into many of them. Re how they treat their women. Domestic violence is a world wide problem and actually no more worse in arab countries than anywhere else. Their legal system may not offer as much protection but then neither did ours until a few years ago! It is just a question of time.

Meanwhile

If I was looking at America for this least compassionate prize I could identify:
the fact they used the atomic bomb,
that they have more blood on their hands than any nation in the world despite their short history.
They made their indiginous people practically extint.
Civil wars.
Their kids kill each other at school, gangs, cults, sects, suicide pacts in hundreds (waco), Iraq war, assassinating presidents etc etc..slave trade as you mentioned. Serial killers. Endless list.

The problem is the media machine. I am fortunate to have actual experience of a variety of cultures (including Americans) so I do not have to rely on propoganda but also I am not ignorant of what my own culture get up to behind closed doors.

We are at as 'feeling level' very much the same in that we posess those qualities I mentioned in different measures within OUR OWN CULTURE, thus that mix exists in different measures in other cultures too.

No culture is full of non compassionate beings or beings less compassionate than us! I am not the same in this regard to my neighbour and so I may not be the same to a foreigner, but then one of those foreigners and I will be entirely the same and so with my neighbour and so on.

My apologies for my mistakes about Islam, that was definitely ignorance on my part. The concepts I was trying to address, though, do still stand. However, I chose extremist minority groups as examples because they show how much of an impact even small groups can have, given extremely strong beliefs and/or cultural impressions. I most certainly wasn't trying to say that whole cultures aren't subject to similar influences.

I also don't think a whole culture can be given a "least compassionate prize" either. In fact I wasn't trying to say who is more compassionate than someone else. The vast majority of people all show compassion towards at least a few other people with whom they want a relationship with (except for your various sociopaths that truly care about no one but themselves, but then they're not functioning normally anyway). And people tend to not show compassion to others, strangers, different. All people, all cultures. Like showing compassion to those in our social group, this is only natural. Now, what's natural isn't always right, and what's right isn't always natural - but knowing the difference does help explain why people do what they do, and what needs to be done to convince them otherwise.

Humans are intelligent, and humans are hierarchical. The one at the top of the social group gets all the prizes. Thus we will bend our intelligence, which is most strongly manifested through our technology, towards gaining dominance/power over others. On the world map this is expressed as one country over another, and to date the US has been the most technologically advanced in this expression of dominance. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that a large part of the human genetic background is based upon these driving principles. The US is most certainly not the only country that has expressed itself in this way, and it won't be the last. One day another country will be more technologically advanced then us, and only time will tell if they'll obey this urge like so many others, or if they'll try and do it differently.

I think in essence we are in agreement. Makes a change on one of these boards eh!

Re most technologically advanced though, isn't that Hong kong?

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

I think in essence we are in agreement. Makes a change on one of these boards eh!

Re most technologically advanced though, isn't that Hong kong?

eegads it's actually Finland! At least it was in 2001!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tive_countries

A very interesting list of 'mosts'

Meanwhile, this is the UN's data re most technologically advanced

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups...npan014340.pdf

see page 9 on adobe (numbered as 103 on document) for the list of countries in top 10.

Well, that's a good job for Finland, but it looks to me like this technology index focuses alot on global internet/networking. But look again at that Wikipedia list you linked to - who put the most funding into their military? Who has the most trucks, trains, and airplanes, as it were? Clearly the US's technological focus is not exactly on networking. :wink:

Originally Posted by paralith

Well, that's a good job for Finland, but it looks to me like this technology index focuses alot on global internet/networking. But look again at that Wikipedia list you linked to - who put the most funding into their military? Who has the most trucks, trains, and airplanes, as it were? Clearly the US's technological focus is not exactly on networking. :wink:

Indeed, it's focus is on killing people. But then we know that already.

Or, providing its citizens with the utmost protection and benefit by securing a dominant place for the nation in the world social group. Evolution smiles on these kinds of things.

Originally Posted by paralith

Or, providing its citizens with the utmost protection and benefit by securing a dominant place for the nation in the world social group. Evolution smiles on these kinds of things.

Well historially, it would appear they use it to kill people as that is what they have done thus far, since the beginning of their history.

More recently, the USA did not need to defend itself from Iraq. Iraq did not declare war on the USA. It had no intention of going anywhere near it and neither has Iran.

Actions speak louder than words as they say.

Iraq probably didn't intend on going anywhere near America. But there's a lot more to protecting your citizens than just making sure the country doesn't get invaded. Like, trying to control the oil that our country depends on for energy and keeping it from getting too expensive. There are lots of benefits that dominance and power have that are more than just physical protection. Think resources.

Like I said before, I'm not saying that it's necessarily right. But there is a rhyme and a reason to it beyond just killing people because they can.

does culture affect things like: compassion, generosity, sense of humour, courage, empathy etc?

Its seems to me that it is a real possibility that there are slight variations. You didnt include that option in your poll though.


Is there even eminent studies done on this? I would have thought the drive for political correctness would retard such knowledge.

Originally Posted by paralith

Iraq probably didn't intend on going anywhere near America. But there's a lot more to protecting your citizens than just making sure the country doesn't get invaded. Like, trying to control the oil that our country depends on for energy and keeping it from getting too expensive. There are lots of benefits that dominance and power have that are more than just physical protection. Think resources.

Like I said before, I'm not saying that it's necessarily right. But there is a rhyme and a reason to it beyond just killing people because they can.

so murder and stealing is acceptable behaviour then?

According to the above, you inadvertantly confess the USA uses their military for stealing and murder.

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

does culture affect things like: compassion, generosity, sense of humour, courage, empathy etc?

Its seems to me that it is a real possibility that there are slight variations. You didnt include that option in your poll though.


Is there even eminent studies done on this? I would have thought the drive for political correctness would retard such knowledge.

If you consider there are variations then you answer 'yes'

there is no need for an alternative option, there either is an observable difference or there is not. If you consider there are then name the culture which observedly has the most compassion and the one that observebly has the least.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

so murder and stealing is acceptable behaviour then?

According to the above, you inadvertantly confess the USA uses their military for stealing and murder.

How many times do I have to say that I'm not saying it's right or acceptable? I'm trying to describe reality. And yes, the ultimate purpose of a military is to kill people. To take control of things, to steal them. I'm "confessing" this quite purposely. This behavior isn't limited to the US. This is human. Until we, the human race, accept that, only then can we make the conscious choice to cease so much destruction.

Was not the point of this thread your belief that no one culture has a monopoly on compassion? Would it not then follow that no one culture has a monopoly on evil? You can hate the US all you like, but don't try and say that it is the only country to ever do ill towards others.

Originally Posted by paralith

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

so murder and stealing is acceptable behaviour then?

According to the above, you inadvertantly confess the USA uses their military for stealing and murder.

How many times do I have to say that I'm not saying it's right or acceptable? I'm trying to describe reality. And yes, the ultimate purpose of a military is to kill people. To take control of things, to steal them. I'm "confessing" this quite purposely. This behavior isn't limited to the US. This is human. Until we, the human race, accept that, only then can we make the conscious choice to cease so much destruction.

Was not the point of this thread your belief that no one culture has a monopoly on compassion? Would it not then follow that no one culture has a monopoly on evil? You can hate the US all you like, but don't try and say that it is the only country to ever do ill towards others.

no it is not human it is savage and barbaric and is ordered by a minority of greedy ego maniacs. Bush and his partners in crime are NOT reflective of American culture...I hope not! You are correct that the US is not unique and do not havea monopoly on evil BUT they do have as you say a greater capacity to do evil than any other nation in the world, due to their military strength, power, money and infuence. The other evil doers are called terrorists. A terrorist is a poor American (metaphorically speaking) Ie a man with no army but a desire to kill.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

does culture affect things like: compassion, generosity, sense of humour, courage, empathy etc?

Its seems to me that it is a real possibility that there are slight variations. You didnt include that option in your poll though.


Is there even eminent studies done on this? I would have thought the drive for political correctness would retard such knowledge.

If you consider there are variations then you answer 'yes'

there is no need for an alternative option, there either is an observable difference or there is not. If you consider there are then name the culture which observedly has the most compassion and the one that observebly has the least.

Tut tut my 170 IQed friend. Where did I say I have observed anything ToR?

I merely assume from my little knowledge of evolution(biology is not my major) that 50,000 years of seperation between races could quite possibally bring more differences than skin tone and facial features. Variations in the things you have suggested could well be resultant from the different isolated environments .

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

no it is not human it is savage and barbaric and is ordered by a minority of greedy ego maniacs. Bush and his partners in crime are NOT reflective of American culture...I hope not! You are correct that the US is not unique and do not havea monopoly on evil BUT they do have as you say a greater capacity to do evil than any other nation in the world, due to their military strength, power, money and infuence. The other evil doers are called terrorists. A terrorist is a poor American (metaphorically speaking) Ie a man with no army but a desire to kill.

Well, this was a very interesting conversation for a while, but at this point we are getting more into opinion and politics than anything else. You are clearly very biased against the United States, and I doubt anything else I might say will convince you to look at things from a different point of view. - not to completely change your mind, not to convince you that the US is somehow a good and innocent country - just to look at it differently.

The last I will say is this: because of it's position of power in the world social group, the things the US does can have more far-reaching effects, yes, but that doesn't make them more or less evil than other countries that have committed atrocities of their own in the past, or who will commit new atrocities in the future when it's their turn to be the one in power. There will always be individual variation in specific motives and methods, and no one person should be taken as a representative for a whole country. But the overall trend of seeking dominance, of bending our intelligence and our technology toward this goal, is a basic human condition that most (not all, but most) people in this world still adhere to. The group we represent can change, the cause we feel we're forwarding can change, but the basic drive is there. And admitting to it is the first step towards changing it.

Originally Posted by paralith

Well, this was a very interesting conversation for a while, but at this point we are getting more into opinion and politics than anything else. You are clearly very biased against the United States, and I doubt anything else I might say will convince you to look at things from a different point of view. - not to completely change your mind, not to convince you that the US is somehow a good and innocent country - just to look at it differently.

.

I don't think I am biased. I see the good the USA does as well, but we were talking about the use of military, the fact it the largest in the world and it's present uses. I think the view I expressed was based on fact not opinion.

I only spoke of America as I assume you are American and it was a good opposing example to the one you presented re Islam.

Originally Posted by paralith

The last I will say is this: because of it's position of power in the world social group, the things the US does can have more far-reaching effects, yes, but that doesn't make them more or less evil than other countries that have committed atrocities of their own in the past, or who will commit new atrocities in the future when it's their turn to be the one in power. There will always be individual variation in specific motives and methods, and no one person should be taken as a representative for a whole country. But the overall trend of seeking dominance, of bending our intelligence and our technology toward this goal, is a basic human condition that most (not all, but most) people in this world still adhere to. The group we represent can change, the cause we feel we're forwarding can change, but the basic drive is there. And admitting to it is the first step towards changing it.

I agree with some of this not all. I believe there are many more peace lovers in the world than greedy power seeking war mongers. The problem is that it is predominantly those that seek power that enter politics and climb that very dangerous ladder to the top of the political food chain. More peace loving advocates will be stampled on or lose faith and become disillusioned in the process.


I don't though believe that these greedy selfish ways are the 'natural' ways. We could only survive as a species by communal living which required harmony. The problems arose when those communities became bigger and more. Anyway that's a whole other topic.

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

does culture affect things like: compassion, generosity, sense of humour, courage, empathy etc?

Its seems to me that it is a real possibility that there are slight variations. You didnt include that option in your poll though.


Is there even eminent studies done on this? I would have thought the drive for political correctness would retard such knowledge.

If you consider there are variations then you answer 'yes'

there is no need for an alternative option, there either is an observable difference or there is not. If you consider there are then name the culture which observedly has the most compassion and the one that observebly has the least.

Tut tut my 170 IQed friend. Where did I say I have observed anything ToR?

I merely assume from my little knowledge of evolution(biology is not my major) that 50,000 years of seperation between races could quite possibally bring more differences than skin tone and facial features. Variations in the things you have suggested could well be resultant from the different isolated environments .

no

oh and 170 IQ I wish! Or maybe I don't being as that would reduce my common sense and social skills.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

no

:? What are you saying no to???

oh and 170 IQ I wish! Or maybe I don't being as that would reduce my common sense and social skills.

Oh so you are not the ToR who claimed to be mensa member material?

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

no

:? What are you saying no to???

oh and 170 IQ I wish! Or maybe I don't being as that would reduce my common sense and social skills.

Oh so you are not the ToR who claimed to be mensa member material?

It was 155 not 170.

I would be collecting my Nobel prize about now if it was 170. As it is I have to wait till we have completed our 'how often do you masturbate 'poll and relate it to effeminate behaviour.

Meanwhile I was saying 'no' to the whole post. I'm a girl.

I am from/in a place most people would call hicksville. Whenever Hollywood wants to make a hillbilly butt-rape movie, they come to this town. Even though I am in the middle of America I feel like the rest of America is outer space compared to home. People in area's such as these still seem to live the way that you could imagine puritans living, or perhaps the movie "Wickerman" without the human BBQ. In places like these there is a lack of being able to see the big picture, and an abundance of the mob mentality. I do believe that people are different and it can be based on where they are from in most cases.

Originally Posted by Amaya

there is a lack of being able to see the big picture, and an abundance of the mob mentality. I do believe that people are different and it can be based on where they are from in most cases.

So are you citing your 'area' as containing the least compassionate people on the planet then?

Yeah, I guess so. But I am sure there are places that comes close.

Originally Posted by Amaya

Yeah, I guess so. But I am sure there are places that comes close.

what area is it that you reside? This 'hell on Earth'.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by Amaya

Yeah, I guess so. But I am sure there are places that comes close.

what area is it that you reside? This 'hell on Earth'.

Gosh, Theory, be nice. Amaya is a new member to the forum and may not be into the swing of things here yet. There's no need for sarcasm like that.

Besides, places like the hometown she is describing are much more common than most people would like to believe, and it's places and people like that, who don't look closely at their own behavior and are easily swayed by the mob mentality, where a lot of the intrinsic genetic influences I've been talking about can come forward. You may not like the fact that humans are a hierarchical species, but it's true. Yes, our species is known for its amazing capabilities for cooperation, more so than any other animal - but cooperation as a means to an end, as a means to increased reproductive success over other competing groups. That is the root of alliances in nature. When two male chimps work together, they can place themselves in the dominant position in their troop above all the other males, and therefore gain all the reproductive rights for themselves.

But the root of a behavior doesn't have to be it's ultimate meaning. As humans we also have the unique ability to choose to use these same means (aka cooperation) to different kinds of ends, to ends that benefit all of society and not just those in power. And from the need to cooperate, things like empathy evolved, things like friendship and compassion evolved, and these are beautiful things, no matter what their evolutionary origins.

But where do you think despotic, cruel rulers come from? Despotic cruel methods are inexcusable in modern human society, and I think so too - but they work. You can most certainly gain a position of power by killing all your enemies and chaining down all those that would depose you. You should see the things male chimps can do to each other in their power struggles. It can be nasty. But that's how they get their reproductive rights, those are the strategies that make it to the next generation. And they can't do it without helping each other. A lone chimp doesn't last for long. Cooperation is how they achieve their dominance.

I know, I said in my earlier post that I was done. I guess I lied.

Thanks for understanding what I was trying to say.
An example of this that has made me fuming mad lately is a museum debate that has been going on. Not long ago there was a dinosaur museum set to be opened near by. Almost everyone was against it, and it was picketed until they decided to not open it. Why? Because dinosaurs weren't in the bible, and so those bones are a tool to make people doubt Jesus. Now they are opening a creationism museum where it would have been, this museum will teach that all science is mostly lies, and the earth is only 6000 years old. Everyone seems perfectly happy with that and it makes me sick. It seems like a church can get together and have many things erased from the community anytime they want to. It's almost like living in England when the Church was law. Is that cultural? Maybe not... most people leave town, but the majority of people who stay and make this place their home, do seem to be a part of the madness. As far as the silly remark about it being hell... it is Hell. Literally. The town is called "Hell for certain" and it's impossible to order anything UPS because of it.

Originally Posted by paralith

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by Amaya

Yeah, I guess so. But I am sure there are places that comes close.

what area is it that you reside? This 'hell on Earth'.

Gosh, Theory, be nice. Amaya is a new member to the forum and may not be into the swing of things here yet. There's no need for sarcasm like that.

I know, I said in my earlier post that I was done. I guess I lied.

I wasn't being sarcastic. She implied it was hell and has since agreed with that assertion.

Originally Posted by Amaya

As far as the silly remark about it being hell... it is Hell. Literally. The town is called "Hell for certain" and it's impossible to order anything UPS because of it.

If it 'is hell literally', then my remark was not the silly one was it? I arrived at 'hell' from the over dramatisation of your post with regard to how awful your home town was. You now agree that term is appropriate, so to refer to my use of it as 'silly' is contradictory don't ya think! I was merely tuning into your inner angst about your home town.

Meanwhile, this thread is my declaration that no one place is full of one type of person. Your reply contradicted that assertion using your home town as an example. Thus YOU claim yourself to also be part of the problem that you see as existing in your home town. Is this correct?


If it is not correct and you consider that you are not part of that mob mentality, then YOU are different, you are an individual, you are not the product of your environment but a product of nature, which in my view has more influence than nurture.

Thus to disagree with my point on the basis your home town is populated by backward hillbillies and yet propose you are the ONE decent person in the twon, is either very egotisical or short sighted. I am guessing shortsighted in that there will also be many other members of your community who are like you. IE Not part of the mob, and not backward hillbillies.

That is the basis of my point. WE are NOT all the same in any single culture in terms of humour, compassion, intelligence,empathy,courage etc. But we are all the same in that we are susceptible in different measures to mob mentality. Different measures exist everywhere.

Originally Posted by paralith

And yes, the ultimate purpose of a military is to kill people.

This is slightly off topic, but I couldn't let it pass.
The ultimate purpose of a military is to exercise political power through having the clear ability to kill people, take control etc. From Sun Tze, through Machiavelli and von Clausewitz, the thoughtful view has always been that once you actually have to use force you have already partially lost.

TofR, you are coming perilously close to indulging in implicit ad hominems when such are most certainly uncalled for, especially when debating with a new member. Please moderate your tone, stop trying to incite disagreement, and stay on topic. [And don't try to tell me you weren't doing that. I'm not interested. I'm wearing a mod hat at the moment and am power crazy. 8) ]

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

TofR, you are coming perilously close to indulging in implicit ad hominems when such are most certainly uncalled for, especially when debating with a new member. Please moderate your tone, stop trying to incite disagreement, and stay on topic. [And don't try to tell me you weren't doing that. I'm not interested. I'm wearing a mod hat at the moment and am power crazy. 8) ]

You're say I'm trying to incite disagreement. Dearest Ophio....I am TRYING to incite AGREEMENT. So yes I will disagree with you.

Meanwhile I shall reply further in pm as that is the proper place for it.

ToR xxx

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by Amaya

As far as the silly remark about it being hell... it is Hell. Literally. The town is called "Hell for certain" and it's impossible to order anything UPS because of it.

If it 'is hell literally', then my remark was not the silly one was it? I arrived at 'hell' from the over dramatisation of your post with regard to how awful your home town was. You now agree that term is appropriate, so to refer to my use of it as 'silly' is contradictory don't ya think! I was merely tuning into your inner angst about your home town.

Meanwhile, this thread is my declaration that no one place is full of one type of person. Your reply contradicted that assertion using your home town as an example. Thus YOU claim yourself to also be part of the problem that you see as existing in your home town. Is this correct?


If it is not correct and you consider that you are not part of that mob mentality, then YOU are different, you are an individual, you are not the product of your environment but a product of nature, which in my view has more influence than nurture.

Thus to disagree with my point on the basis your home town is populated by backward hillbillies and yet propose you are the ONE decent person in the twon, is either very egotisical or short sighted. I am guessing shortsighted in that there will also be many other members of your community who are like you. IE Not part of the mob, and not backward hillbillies.

That is the basis of my point. WE are NOT all the same in any single culture in terms of humour, compassion, intelligence,empathy,courage etc. But we are all the same in that we are susceptible in different measures to mob mentality. Different measures exist everywhere.

Even in a town such as I described I have met witches, satanists and athiests. So it's true that not everyone in towns like this are a carbon copy of the mean old school marm who would rather beat you in the face with a bible than read it to you. I have a bad habit of exaggeration and not saying exactly what I mean, but going over the top. So I will clarify that although I said "everyone" I meant the majority.

If you look from state to state you can see that cultural differences are evident. In places like Tennessee or Kentucky you are way more likely to see a man in jeans and a rock T and boots, on his way to bowl, watch races, or some muddy man sport. If you go to Hollywood you are more likely to see a man wearing a "man purse" who just got his nails done. If you put the "red neck" in Hollywood, he is going to be made fun of, and thought of as backward. If you put a well groomed man carrying a purse in Kentucky, he is possibly going to be mocked, or even assaulted.

I don't know who made the rules that dictate what normal is, but the majority of people seem to want to stick to those rules. The rules do seem to change depending on what state/country your in.

Amaya, thankyou for your input

I have not denied the types of cultural differences you refer to. The things I refer to are ( I believe) not culturally defined. IE Sense of humour, empathy, generosity.

Cultures may only restrict those things to their own kind but they do have them in equal measure (more or less) everywhere. Even the Bible belt in your town, must be nice to those they consider the same as themselves. Else they would die out.

Cultural differences I observe are things such as communication etiquette, body space, eating habits, religious beliefs,political ideals,dress,moral issues (ie ok to be gay v not ok) etc.

But those qualities such as courage,empathy,humour I believe are not.

Do different cultures have measureable/observable differences in things such as humour,empathy,compassion,courage,kindness ?

I dont know, I havent researched it, but youd have to define the 'culture' you are refering to, which would likely be composed of an amalgam of very different sub-cultres each composed of a variety of different individuals, so you'd have to calculate averages*(*which is used to conceal realities as much as its used to understand thrends), have a very hard time measuring it all while keeping a straight face and would have to arbitrarily define and quantify the various qualitative parameters you have laid.

Can different cultures have measureable/observable differences in things such as humour,empathy,compassion,courage,kindness ?
to me in theory, yes they can, but the result has so many levels of arbitray spin that its likely to be as pointless as using a cubist Picasso painting to understand the human physionomy.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Do different cultures have measureable/observable differences in things such as humour,empathy,compassion,courage,kindness ?

the answer is clearly no

why doesnt he just post an anti eurocentric, self hate treatise on why liberalism is wonderful?

The whole thing smacks of 'all cultures are special and wonderful so they should all be promoted over whatever tradition (culture) prevails atm'.

Which is of course stupid.

biologist marc hauser says no, morality is genetic. he questioned many people of different cultural backrounds on various moral dilemmas and the andswers were pretty identical.
don't know about humor thow.