> With their plethora of strictly enforced rules
> governing various minutiae of daily existence,
> I would be surprised if they are not low on UAI.

Be sure you're using the terminology correctly. "UAI" is short for
Uncertainty Avoidance (and we think the "I" is for "Inventory"). If
the Amish have strict regulations to govern possibly uncertain
situations, then they are likely to be HIGH in Uncertainty Avoidance,
not low. Therefore, based on your arguments, you should be surprised
if they are not *high* on UAI.

That stated, I agree that you have a point. They don't have a very
high UAI profile in the sense that I'm used to seeing, but it's
obvious that they live highly regulated lives. If someone could
administer Hofstede's tests to the Amish, it would be very
interesting to see how they would score.


> So do Catholics! (And the similarity here is no
> coincidence--it was Puritans who created the emphasis
> on "assurance of salvation," but they had little or
> no effect on RC's or anabaptist sects who retained
> the Catholic view. So does this show that Catholics
> are lower on UA than evangelicals who emphasize the
> importance of "knowing you're saved?" You've already
> agreed that it is the other way around.

Interesting point. I can only say once again that this is an issue
which I approach with a strong degree of humility, because I don't
think I fully understand these cultural dimensions.


> > I think that's increasing IND and decreasing PDI much
> > more than decreasing UAI.
>
> ams: Yet you did say that UAI correlates postively
> with xenophobia, did you not? Doesn't increased openness
> to Blacks (internal aliens) and, via changes in
> immigration rules, foreigners (external aliens) signify
> less xenophobia and, logically, less UA?

Hofstede *described* high UAI cultures as xenophobic and
superstitious. So far as I understand it from snooping through his
books on Amazon.com, that was merely his own observation. I'm
inclined to trust his description as it seems to fit in very nicely
with everything I understand, but I don't think there's any hard data.


> I would think it's possible, but not Bush. He's too
> supportive of multiculturalism, alien immigration, and,
> in the area of religion, ecumenism. And then there's
> his Mestizo nephew whom he dreams of becoming the
> next Bush in the White House. Ignorant, arrogant,
> and callous, yes; xenophobic, no.

Doesn't his mestizo nephew speak English? I think Bush sees the
nonChristian, non-American hordes in the middle East with a great
deal of xenophobia. (In other words, I think he is xenophobic in the
way many bioegalitarians are xenophobic - they don't really fear
different genetic groups, which they disbelieve in anyway, but
different cultural forms give them the heebie jeebies.)


> ams: Yet high MAS Jap babies behave the opposite
> of Jewish babies (with Euro babies in between)

Do they? Can you provide a source? If true, this helps us to pinpoint
the nature of Jewish crying as being Low-A (provided that you believe
Jews are low-A and Asians are high-A).

As a personal anecdote, my sister, who tests about as low as I do on
Agreeableness, which is extremely low, was absolutely petrified of
strangers as an infant. Her earliest memories are of crawling under
the table when strangers came into the house. Yet she also scores
(like I do) very low on Neuroticism. This is just one example, of
course, but information is scarce enough that it seemed worth
bringing up.


> --if this is evidence that Jewish
> culture is low A, it must also be evidence that high MAS
> Japanese culture is high A. Not a tidy picture.

Perhaps UAI is a result of the personality of its constituents, while
the personality of its constituents is the result of MAS?


> How does the low A USA score on MAS?

About average, near 60 I believe. I'm offline right now but check the
links I gave previously; there are plenty of lists of country scores
on the internet.


> MH: I can only say that I think you're grossly
> misunderstanding UAI.

> ams: Isn't a society governed by lots of rules
> regarding social propriety typical of UAI societies?
> If so, that's what I have described: those rules of
> propriety have decreased greatly since the '60's.
> It's much more socially laissez-faire now, except
> for certain matters that infringe on political
> sensibilities.

But these rules were generally *unwritten.* They were understood to
be part of a grey area of culture which everyone took for granted.



> > I don't know much about Greece or Portugal,
> > but do Belgians have traditionalist attitudes?
> > Spanyards? The French? Have you seen the stuff
> > they show on TV in Japan?
>
> ams: Mark, you're changing the subject. What do
> traditionalist attitudes have to do with our topic?

Every single example of "decreasing UAI" which you gave involved
decreasing traditional values. Look:

___________

"in many ways things are laxer now--sexual and reproductive
behavior are much more laissez-faire, movies and television and
music and advertising all show things they wouldn't dare in
the '50's, the old social prohibitions on racial mingling are
relaxed; eg, it's no longer scandalous if you invite a visiting black
into your house rather than just on the front porch. Homosexuals
generally weren't even spoken of, and sex roles were much more
defined in both custom and law. No more shot-gun weddings or,
otherwise, get the disgraceful girl out of town for awhile and put
the baby up for adoption. Divorce has lost virtually all its stigma.
And in the '50's, peecee stigma was
simply directed against Commies and socialists rather than "racists,
sexists, and homophobes."
___________

With the exception of a few anti-miscegination laws, all of
these "regulations" you describe were just the way everybody behaved.
There were no laws against discussing homosexuals, no laws enforcing
shotgun weddings, no laws preventing divorce, just, as you
said, "stigma." This is all evidence for increasing IND over the last
century, not decreasing UAI.


> Well, you're not talking about the Empire
> anymore. You're discussing the barbarians.
> I tend to agree that their Christianization
> was not as deep. Many of the Empire's
> converts were the result of a mass movement.

This is essentially what I was saying (or regurgitating - this is
just Stark's idea, though I agree with it). Genuine conversions take
place through friendly social networks, rather than being imposed by
autocratic demands from above.


> > ...paranoid, suspicious, undisclosing, and
> > assertive, and these are all hallmarks of
> > disagreeableness.
>
> ams: Or perhaps of low O, low O, low O, and high
> E? A may not be the only trait involved here.

I agree that A may not be the only trait involved. But look at the
way the facets of A are described:


Agreeableness Facets

Trust. A person with high trust assumes that most people are fair,
honest, and have good intentions. Persons low in trust see others as
selfish, devious, and potentially dangerous.

Morality. (Some inventories name this "straightforwardness") High
scorers on this scale see no need for pretense or manipulation when
dealing with others and are therefore candid, frank, and sincere. Low
scorers believe that a certain amount of deception in social
relationships is necessary. People find it relatively easy to relate
to the straightforward high-scorers on this scale. They generally
find it more difficult to relate to the unstraightforward low-scorers
on this scale. It should be made clear that low scorers are not
unprincipled or immoral; they are simply more guarded and less
willing to openly reveal the whole truth.

Altruism. Altruistic people find helping other people genuinely
rewarding. Consequently, they are generally willing to assist those
who are in need. Altruistic people find that doing things for others
is a form of self-fulfillment rather than self-sacrifice. Low scorers
on this scale do not particularly like helping those in need.
Requests for help feel like an imposition rather than an opportunity
for self-fulfillment.

Cooperation. Individuals who score high on this scale dislike
confrontations. They are perfectly willing to compromise or to deny
their own needs in order to get along with others. Those who score
low on this scale are more likely to intimidate others to get their
way.

Modesty. High scorers on this scale do not like to claim that they
are better than other people. In some cases this attitude may derive
from low self-confidence or self-esteem. Nonetheless, some people
with high self-esteem find immodesty unseemly. Those who are willing
to describe themselves as superior tend to be seen as disagreeably
arrogant by other people.

Sympathy / Tender-Mindedness. People who score high on this scale are
tenderhearted and compassionate. They feel the pain of others
vicariously and are easily moved to pity. Low scorers are not
affected strongly by human suffering. They pride themselves on making
objective judgments based on reason. They are more concerned with
truth and impartial justice than with mercy.


> I do think you make a strong case here, but I'm not
> as ready to conclude it as you are. They do seem to
> be very altruistic toward fellow Jews (a component of A);
> they co-ordinate their actions very well together,
> which should also indicate high A. Likewise, there
> seems to be strong conformity of opinion within their
> ranks--a high A trait.

How frequently do they experience religious schisms?


> OTOH, you seem to have a point
> that the crying is more likely explained by A than N,
> because East Asians should not be lower N than whites.
> The picture still looks very mixed to me.

This actually gives us a good basis for comparison - Jews and
E.Asians are quite "K-selected." They have high intelligence, high
rates of myopia, low fertility, high parental investment, are
financially successful, etc. So they should show similar behaviors.
Yet, their personalities and strategies do seem different on simple
observation. The Japanese seem far more self-effacing, submissive,
quiet, and friendly, while the Jews are more religious (or used to
be, anyway), more domineering, and more warlike. It sounds like a
difference in both E and A. Perhaps this is the difference between
diasporic city-living and insular agricultural living? People who
live in cities tend to be higher on O and lower on A, if I remember
correctly, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a difference in E as
well. Perhaps long city life has bred certain of these traits into
the Jewish people, or, perhaps the traits traditionally associated
with them are transient characteristics imposed on them and everyone
else who lives in the city.


> With one notable exception, the Jews I have known
> have not struck me as especially disagreeable, but
> that may be a lucky accident.

You know, that may be because Jews are intelligent. Personal
experience suggests that smart disagreeable people easily fool others
into thinking they're nice, friendly, team players. This is probably
how politicians do it! The only thing that bothers me about this line
of reasoning is that it smacks of rationalization - if the data
doesn't fit the theory, let's re-interpret it to fit the theory. I'd
like to have some actual hard data on Ashkenazi Jews, or at least on
Semites in general; it would be better than going on conjecture and
personal experiences.


--Mark