I was making a joke...
The idea that we laugh about other peoples squabbles while we ourselves are squabbling....
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The idea that we laugh about other peoples squabbles while we ourselves are squabbling....
"Cliché" is something abstract that has been detached from its original meaning or purpose, strawberries and cream alone is not a cliche: Wimbledon and strawberries with cream however is a cliché. The national stereotypes you refer to as "traditional" arguments are clichés. They are not dismissed because they are oft repeated, heard or told before. They are dismissed because they have no scientific standing. Robert Tombs is not presenting a scientific thesis, he's not even presenting an unscentific thesis, Robert Tombs is selling a product to his readers. The only merit found here is the admittedly clever pandering to the customer base.
Self victimization is a pointless exercise.
The difference between British and French:
When a British captive officer challenged Surcouf with the words "You French fight for money while we fight for honour", Surcouf replied "Each of us fights for what he lacks most".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Surcouf#cite_ref-70
When a British captive officer challenged Surcouf with the words "You French fight for money while we fight for honour", Surcouf replied "Each of us fights for what he lacks most".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Surcouf#cite_ref-70
@SirNat:
To expand on what Huzzbutt said:
The point I was trying to make was not that it was an 'outdated' theory.
The point I made was that there is no there there.
All 'evidence' presented in the article is either based on anecdotal evidence or 'received wisdom'.
Neither is falsifiable.
Which breaks it down to 'In my opinion...' and that, while informative, is hardly an 'excellent article that articulating the differences between the English and the French'.
There is no excellence, nothing is articulated.
To expand on what Huzzbutt said:
The point I was trying to make was not that it was an 'outdated' theory.
The point I made was that there is no there there.
All 'evidence' presented in the article is either based on anecdotal evidence or 'received wisdom'.
Neither is falsifiable.
Which breaks it down to 'In my opinion...' and that, while informative, is hardly an 'excellent article that articulating the differences between the English and the French'.
There is no excellence, nothing is articulated.
Well I would disagree with your definition of cliche. Rather being detached or abstracted from its meaning, something which is cliche simply has been used many times in the past to the point where the original purpose or intent is forgotten or glossed over.
This does not mean that something that is cliche is wrong though. In the case of strawberries and cream at Wimbledon, the original reasons why strawberries were had Wimbledon were likely the fact that strawberries are a locally sourced fruit available in the UK which ripen in during the summer. Along with cream which is cool and refreshing, perfect for the hot summer. Also the tradition in itself can gain value- the enjoyment and pleasure of having strawberries and cream and Wimbledon if often worthy of being retold to friends at a later date on in this modern age instagramming about.
Humans are creatures of habit as a wise man once said. I can almost guarantee 99% of the actions you take on a daily basis are through force of habit not because they have a "scientific standing" whatever that even means. You brushed your teeth because your mother told you to do so, not because some scientific research found out that you should do- that research was basically superflouous to your decision making (I notice that most surveys/research is conducted simply to verify existing biases and worldviews). You learn these habits and tendencies through gradual osmosis with those who you interact with. For most this is through your family and your extended cultural group.
As you probably know already, different cultural groups will develop tendencies and habits. We use these to identify these groups and groups will often cherish and celebrate these differences for their own sake. Some of these may be at a superficial level, the colours of our flag, to the very general thoughts and approaches that we have (as Robert was referring to). In fact I for one do not believe that there is any innate traits to humans at all, but this is besides the point.
Last edited:
"Cultural groups" exists in Pdox games, it is not a scientific concept in the least. Humans are creatures of habits and humans habitually argue that they should be exempt from scientific standards because reasons. Robert Tomb caters to this. Your disagreement about the meaning of the word Cliché is simply a reiteration of the by my referenced meaning of Cliché.
Don't get me wrong, I love profiling, Racism and all that nonsense. It's just great fun but that's all it is.
There was a professor at a globalized business school (possibly INSEAD, I can't remember now) who did some research examining the teamwork styles of his students according to their cultural backgrounds, building on Hofstede's model of the effects of culture in the workplace. I don't have time to check or go into all the details, but IIRC he identified four models rather similar to what you have said:
- the British students tended to use a 'market' model, where everything could be renegotiated at any time
- the French students tended to use a 'pyramid' model, where the team leaders made all the decisions, but differences between two leaders had to be resolved by the teacher
- the German students tended to use a 'machine' model, where you set the rules & then expected the team to work smoothly
- the Chinese students tended to use a 'family' model, where leaders assigned tasks, but the lines of authority were far more tangled than in the 'pyramid'
The Americans were closest to the French, I think.
Obviously his account had far more caveats than I have given here, and some people would say this is all stereotyped nonsense. It really depends on what you think of Hofstede's work.
In my experience with the first 3, it is extremely true. I would say that Americans work a lot more like the Germans-with-a-stronger-leader, though, and the Chinese (with whom I worked much less, at least in a senior position) work like the French.
Speaking as an American who has worked 20 years for a French company with a very international workforce don’t think these ‘cultural stereotypes’ are useful very often. The differences I have seen between different ‘corporate cultures’ oror high level managers decisions about how things ought to run or a low level manager with strong ideas are far more important than where someone’s from. Find out what the situation actually is and who the individuals exercising influence are and what they are like and you can make some really useful tactical and strategic predictions about how their organization makes decisions and negotiates. Run on stereotypes and it’s a disaster. A truely skilled manager or negotiator can use many styles as needed to adapt to the details of the situation at hand. A moderately skilled one uses only a few techniques but is good at them. A crappy one uses a few techniques poorly, or all of them at the wrong times.
The only exception I have ever seen is the Dutch. Every single Dutch manager I have ever met is an egotistical backstabbing idiot. With a single exception every one I have ever worked with was fired, resigned or sent home within a year of the time they came to the US. The really scary thing is that I can see the same attributes in most of the few Dutch students and young employees I have met as well.
The only exception I have ever seen is the Dutch. Every single Dutch manager I have ever met is an egotistical backstabbing idiot. With a single exception every one I have ever worked with was fired, resigned or sent home within a year of the time they came to the US. The really scary thing is that I can see the same attributes in most of the few Dutch students and young employees I have met as well.
What do you even mean by 'humans argue that they should be exempt from scientific standard because reasons'? What do scientific standards even mean within this context.
If cultural differences are not the reason why different groups are different then please enlighten me what is explaining the difference between different peoples. I am curious to know that why I place a napkin on my knees when I eat, why I choose to use certain language around certain company why I feel a stronger sense of empathy to fellow Brit's compared to other nationalities are all due to these mysterious scientific reasons you ambiguously refer to.
I believe that you don't really understand what you are talking about and simply take the approach of "Hur Dur Science is good."
Oh God the Dutch.
We don't have Dutch office in my current company but we had 2 Dutch managers, and I also had to report to Dutch Management in a previous office, and yes I fully share the "egotistical backstabbing" part. I did not find them to be idiot (rather the opposite), but oh boy were they backstabbing, and oh boy whenever they talk to you they keep explaining you how the whole company is made-up of idiots (except them and you), with idiotic tools (except the one they have been making), and idiot strategy ; and whatever poor performance they have is due to either the idiots working with them horizontally, or to the idiotic tools they have to work with, or the idiotic strategy of the incompetent CEO.
On the other hand, they always had a very strong work ethic and a very good understanding of the company / market they operated with, making them only the "second-worst nationality to work with" after the French-Canadian.
Last edited:
If you are an egotistical backstabber, you automatically put yourself in the idiot class. Some of them were definately quite intelligent, but absolutely refused to put that intelligence to use in a constructive way. that makes you an idiot.
well who's the bigger idiot: the guy who works constructively with someone and ends up uncredited with a knife in his back or the guy who actively prevents the latter by pre-emptive backstabbing?
Do you think Robert Tomb's argument is interesting from a fictious perspective or do you think Robert Tombs argument is interesting from a factual standpoint?
If it's the former then we can all have a good laugh and forget about it, if it's the latter we are obliged to judge the argument on its scientific merits (which there are none).
You place your napkin on your knees because you were raised to do so. You choose a certain language around a certain group because you adapt to your surroundings. You feel a strong empathy towards those you percieve to be closer to you. The only times we use culture as concrete, defined terms are when we A). talk about neolithic pottery B.) The cultivation of plants and fungi and C). In organization theory.
You and Robert Tombs use culture in the sense of an abstraction, a conceptualization of what it means to be something and you argue that this abstract conceptualization by it's own propagate thorugh society, the concept goes by other names: Volksgeist, A certain Je ne sais quoi etc.
Feel free to argue against my points Junker-Nat.
@SeekTruthFromFx :
One of the caveats would be that different groups within a 'culture' might be closer to other groups in other cultures than to other groups in there own culture.
It's bascially the same problem that also exists with 'race' where 'black people' often share fewer markers with each other than they would share with a 'white' person.
Take, for example, border regions.
On both sides of the French-German border there is a border region roughly 50 to 100 kilometers deep. Until the Alastains were 'frenchized' they even considered themselves German-speaking French.
But to what 'culture' do those border people belong?
Where is the 'purest' culture found within a given culture, etc.
All these theories based on race, culture or ethnicity look often very appealling, but the very fact needed to make them appealing, drastic dumbing down and the erasure of 'in between' populations, makes them also quite meaningless.
One of the caveats would be that different groups within a 'culture' might be closer to other groups in other cultures than to other groups in there own culture.
It's bascially the same problem that also exists with 'race' where 'black people' often share fewer markers with each other than they would share with a 'white' person.
Take, for example, border regions.
On both sides of the French-German border there is a border region roughly 50 to 100 kilometers deep. Until the Alastains were 'frenchized' they even considered themselves German-speaking French.
But to what 'culture' do those border people belong?
Where is the 'purest' culture found within a given culture, etc.
All these theories based on race, culture or ethnicity look often very appealling, but the very fact needed to make them appealing, drastic dumbing down and the erasure of 'in between' populations, makes them also quite meaningless.
In my experience, the backstabber gets discovered, is eventually punished, and everyone else lives happily ever after. The concept that being the backstabber could be a positive game to play only works if you assume everyone around you is too stupid to figure out what you did.
Or you climbed fast enough and high enough to have escaped everybody knowing of your backstabbing ways...
People who say that Dutch people are backstabbers: would you be so kind as to explain what kind of behaviour you mean by that? Obviously it's an analogy, but in an international forum I'm hesitant about assuming the reference.
Yes, certainly, it's one of the most common criticisms of Hofstede's work.
Having said that, I don't think that rules out all such discussions. The Franco-German border example you introduce is a helpful one. Alsatian German is influenced by French in various ways. I've heard "Salut" used as a greeting by Rhinelanders and I've read that it's common in the Saarland; I guess that might be even more true in Alsatian German. So there is a legitimate debate about whether it's a word in German (most people say no, but it is reasonable to argue that it is). However, could we reasonably say 我说德语 is German? It could be, but it's certainly not. Likewise, we can make some generalized statements about the grammar of modern standard German: it has three genders and has both Subject-Verb-Object and Subject-Object-Verb word order. We often say that those are statements about "German grammar", even if they're not true of all the dialects etc. of the language.
In the same way (and in part because very many aspects of culture are language), I'd argue we we can also make generalized claims about the 'grammar' of social interaction in cultures. You're quite right to argue that these are often too complex for practical use. But to take an example from another current thread, understanding that Egyptian drivers are not usually going to stop at traffic lights, and that giving a Chinese business partner a clock as a gift is a major faux pas, are good rules of thumb that help avoid some of the worst disasters.
Yes, certainly, it's one of the most common criticisms of Hofstede's work.
Having said that, I don't think that rules out all such discussions. The Franco-German border example you introduce is a helpful one. Alsatian German is influenced by French in various ways. I've heard "Salut" used as a greeting by Rhinelanders and I've read that it's common in the Saarland; I guess that might be even more true in Alsatian German. So there is a legitimate debate about whether it's a word in German (most people say no, but it is reasonable to argue that it is). However, could we reasonably say 我说德语 is German? It could be, but it's certainly not. Likewise, we can make some generalized statements about the grammar of modern standard German: it has three genders and has both Subject-Verb-Object and Subject-Object-Verb word order. We often say that those are statements about "German grammar", even if they're not true of all the dialects etc. of the language.
In the same way (and in part because very many aspects of culture are language), I'd argue we we can also make generalized claims about the 'grammar' of social interaction in cultures. You're quite right to argue that these are often too complex for practical use. But to take an example from another current thread, understanding that Egyptian drivers are not usually going to stop at traffic lights, and that giving a Chinese business partner a clock as a gift is a major faux pas, are good rules of thumb that help avoid some of the worst disasters.