4 ms·

Are they, though? Outside of Japan and it's former colonies which they were trying to assimilate into the same culture, Korea and Taiwan. Just a quick look at t

by Yizahi 9mo ago

Are they, though? Outside of Japan and it's former colonies which they were trying to assimilate into the same culture, Korea and Taiwan. Just a quick look at the road traffic tells a lot about culture being individualistic or cooperative. Or a garbage problem. Or public greenery problem. Basically any social issue where good cooperation is not immediately rewarded and has to be done either out of the goodness of the heart or because a person is capable of long term thinking. I'm thinking that the real culprit of collaborative culture is the historic bidirectional relations between the high ruler of the land and his vassals, and same down the chain. If the rule was absolute and one directional (down) throughout most of the land history, then there is not much chance that collaborative culture may develop at the lower levels. And if there was a bidirectional relations, even very limited, if rulers weren't almighty but sometimes had their own responsibilities towards subjects, then the collaborative culture had a higher chance to evolve.

bwestergard 9mo ago
"collaborative culture is the historic bidirectional relations between the high ruler of the land and his vassals, and same down the chain" Are you suggesting this was the case in parts pre-modern Europe?
- Yizahi 9mo ago
  Of course, over the past few centuries. Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Polish-Lithuanian Constitution and many other central documents limiting powers of the highest ruler. As an example more familiar to me - Kievan Rus and its region (modern day Ukraine, Russia). Duchies in the region had been closely following western Europe countries, right up until Golden Horde invasion and continued occupation. After that few centuries of despotia, then Russian Empire, then USSR effectively destroyed almost all collaborative culture. But on the other hand western Ukraine managed to avoid most of that and preserved its culture over the centuries. And so in the 21st century that preserved core managed to jump-start democratic revolution in the country, while protests in Russia mostly fizzled out, with some exceptions of course.
terminalshort 9mo ago
I don't think this sort of analysis works. Cooperation in one area doesn't necessarily indicate cooperative behavior in another. Anyone who has skied in Europe and the US and seen the absolute anarchy and chaos of a European lift "line" can tell you that.
sidewndr46 9mo ago
I don't really think looking at road traffic is a good example here. I grew up in the US, so my first thoughts are "well the signage is inadequate, it appears lanes aren't respected & if there are traffic control devices they aren't being followed". I've also driven in a bunch of different places, including the left-hand drive portion of the United States. So I've seen the wide spectrum of driving. I could just as easily remark that in some parts of Asia, road traffic has a general degree of lawlessness to it. Laws aren't enforced or are absent in the first place. Yet somehow it appears that in any populated area hundreds of thousands of people are able to participate in road traffic each day and somehow be productive members of society and economy. All of this happens in the absence of legal coercion. I'm not going to leap to "it's a libertarian utopia" but if people can co-exist in a society in a productive way without legal coercion and have it not just immediately become violent I think that is admirable.
- Yizahi 9mo ago
  To expand on this point - individualistic culture doesn't necessarily mean that individual wants to harm others or himself. It's just that's not a highest priority. So yes, in the chaotic driving people manage to not kill each other most of the time. But it doesn't make it cooperative per definition. It's carefully adversarial more like. For example a pedestrian crossing the road will never see a driver braking and stopping to allow him to pass. Such action gives no immediate benefit to the driver and is only possible in the cooperative culture. So instead pedestrian and driver are not collaborating and just hope to wing it somehow on the spot. And if pedestrian is not moving predictably, it's not a driver's problem. Or worker rights for example. Maybe one can hope to negotiate a better salary for himself if everyone is secretive and individualistic all the time (the temporary embarrassed millionaire trope), so no one pushes for unionization and worker rights and benefits together. Stuff like that.

by Yizahi 9mo ago

bwestergard 9mo ago

"collaborative culture is the historic bidirectional relations between the high ruler of the land and his vassals, and same down the chain" Are you suggesting this was the case in parts pre-modern Europe?

Yizahi 9mo ago
Of course, over the past few centuries. Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Polish-Lithuanian Constitution and many other central documents limiting powers of the highest ruler. As an example more familiar to me - Kievan Rus and its region (modern day Ukraine, Russia). Duchies in the region had been closely following western Europe countries, right up until Golden Horde invasion and continued occupation. After that few centuries of despotia, then Russian Empire, then USSR effectively destroyed almost all collaborative culture. But on the other hand western Ukraine managed to avoid most of that and preserved its culture over the centuries. And so in the 21st century that preserved core managed to jump-start democratic revolution in the country, while protests in Russia mostly fizzled out, with some exceptions of course.

terminalshort 9mo ago

I don't think this sort of analysis works. Cooperation in one area doesn't necessarily indicate cooperative behavior in another. Anyone who has skied in Europe and the US and seen the absolute anarchy and chaos of a European lift "line" can tell you that.

sidewndr46 9mo ago

I don't really think looking at road traffic is a good example here. I grew up in the US, so my first thoughts are "well the signage is inadequate, it appears lanes aren't respected & if there are traffic control devices they aren't being followed". I've also driven in a bunch of different places, including the left-hand drive portion of the United States. So I've seen the wide spectrum of driving. I could just as easily remark that in some parts of Asia, road traffic has a general degree of lawlessness to it. Laws aren't enforced or are absent in the first place. Yet somehow it appears that in any populated area hundreds of thousands of people are able to participate in road traffic each day and somehow be productive members of society and economy. All of this happens in the absence of legal coercion. I'm not going to leap to "it's a libertarian utopia" but if people can co-exist in a society in a productive way without legal coercion and have it not just immediately become violent I think that is admirable.

Yizahi 9mo ago
To expand on this point - individualistic culture doesn't necessarily mean that individual wants to harm others or himself. It's just that's not a highest priority. So yes, in the chaotic driving people manage to not kill each other most of the time. But it doesn't make it cooperative per definition. It's carefully adversarial more like. For example a pedestrian crossing the road will never see a driver braking and stopping to allow him to pass. Such action gives no immediate benefit to the driver and is only possible in the cooperative culture. So instead pedestrian and driver are not collaborating and just hope to wing it somehow on the spot. And if pedestrian is not moving predictably, it's not a driver's problem. Or worker rights for example. Maybe one can hope to negotiate a better salary for himself if everyone is secretive and individualistic all the time (the temporary embarrassed millionaire trope), so no one pushes for unionization and worker rights and benefits together. Stuff like that.