> > "Jewish nations."
>
> Alright, I'll bite. How many "predominantly Jewish nations"
> are there in the world right now???

Answering this question is left as an exercise for the reader. One
thing I've noticed repeatedly when reading Hofstede is that he lacks
clarity of expression - and to such a degree that you can't be
confident on whether he means "X is very, very Y," or "X is extremely
not Y." Apparently this is a holy tradition which has been carried on
by others in his blessed name.


> Is it _Culture's Consequences_?

That's the title, yep.


> 1. They tend to be very driven to succeed--they try harder.

Or they could be driven to *win.* A high E, high N, low A profile is
perfect for fueling that competetive drive.


> If their famous ingroup altruism is not explained by higher
> A, maybe it is explained by higher C, creating a sense of
> obligation.

Actually, *lower* Agreeableness probably creates a better sense of
ingroup altruism. As you may remember, I posted a few articles on e-l
regarding prejudice, and low-A came up as a positive predictor of
prejudice. (I can think of a lot of models that might explain this,
and my favorite involves a bell curve, but the simplest way to think
of it is like this: say that high-A's are suspicious of family 1% of
the time, and strangers 20% of the time, and low-A's are four times
as suspicious as high A's.)


> > IND correlates inversely with the importance attached to
religion.
>
> Now here is something else that's curious. Supposedly prosperity
> increases IND. (And, according to John Wesley, it also undermines
> religious piety.) However, David Landau in _Piety and Power_
writes
> that the Haredi (so-called "ultra-orthodox") Jews in America (as
> opposed to Israel where they freeload off the secular Israeli state
> and American Jewish generosity) are the most economically successful
> segment of Judaism as well as the most religiously intense.

I remembered thinking a while back, before I got my hands on
_Culture's Consequences_ and had only my own reasoning to rely on,
that the problem was always

intelligence --> wealth --> individualism --> dysgenesis

and I thought "if only there were a way to break the chain off where
it links wealth and individualism together."


> The key to Haredi success in resisting the temptations of
> prosperity seems to be intensive religious education through
> all grade levels, and self-insulation from
> the electronic mass media may also play a valuable role.

That's what I'm hoping to do with my cultist buddies.


> BTW, based on your first hand observation of Jews, do they seem
> to work harder than other whites?

No way. They're humorously Neurotic in my experience, but no, I
wouldn't describe them as hardworking.

The thing is that East Asians are Neurotic too, but they seem to
be "internally" Neurotic, assuminhg that there's always something
wrong with them - anxious, self effacing, and polite. The Jews are
more "externally" Neurotic and assume there's always something wrong
with the surroundings or with you - defensive, demanding, and hostile.


> How would you compare them with East Asians in similar positions--
> or, assuming you have had less exposure to East
> Asians in analogous positions, with the reputations that East Asian
> managers, entrepreneurs, and professionals have for working very
hard
> and putting in longer hours than Whites?

I really think it's just that East Asians try to achieve, and Jews
try to win. Jews are always looking for status; East Asians, never.
(LTO cultures feel that humility is a virtue.) This is why Asians
are "the silent minority." This is probably also why Jews are
perceived as parasitic; what do lawyers, politicians, actors,
screenwriters, advertizers, and bankers really offer to society? Not
much compared to architects, engineers, chemists, electricians, and
mathematicians. But they do get more status, and more wealth.


> Do you get the impression that
> Jews are extra-hard workers or put in longer than
> average hours? Or are they more like Aryans than Orientals?

According to my impressions, Jews and East Asians are on opposite
ends of the spectrum with Euros in the middle. East Asians are
annoyingly Conscientious; Jews are a lot more fun. I should stress
that all of this is just a general impression and that there are
exceptions; I mean, you've never seen competition until you've been
to a Tekken tournament.

(Tekken is a one-on-one fighting game dominated by East Asians who
share only one psychological trait: a complete absense of class and
style. These video games often encourage a practice known
as "juggling," whereby you punch or kick your computerized opponent
into the air and then repeatedly scrape his toes with your own
character's fists, thereby buoying him upwards while damaging him.
Your opponent, of course, has no recourse except to wait patiently
while you complete your tedious typing exercise and achieve as great
of an imbalance in your advantage as possible. This is viewed
as "skill" within the context of Tekken, while making fun of your
opponent for carrying out this ridiculous dance and asking how many
WPM he gets is frowned upon. I once asked a Tekken player "If there
were a button you could push which would allow you to automatically
win, would you push it?" And of course his answer was "Of course!")


> Traditional religions, especially monotheistic ones, tend
> to legitimize patriarchal authority structures and to
> discourage individualism.

(Protestantism legitimizes - or at least goes along with - low PDI
and low UAI, but it's still a high MAS religion.)


> So which is the chicken and which is the egg?

I think MAS and monotheism probably both influence one another.


> > I agree that LTO is better than I first gave it credit for.
> > Yet LTO still seems like a bandaid for a cultural schema
> > which doesn't include intelligence: LTO looks like -IND + IQ,
>
> I'm guessing that when you write "include," you mean "acknowledge."

Yes.


> LTO seems to me to be synonymous with cultural continuity.

No... it's really more to do with perseverence and thrift and
whatnot. High LTOers save a lot and invest a lot. They're big on
deferred gratification. In fact "respect for tradition" is part of
*short* term orientation, as well as saving face; high LTO represents
adaptability of traditions. Also, the family is a business to LTO
cultures, and they like to carefully nurture it into success; "work
and family life are one." There's a lot more to do with money than
with intangibles like human relationships and with culture.

Trust me, Alypius, 80% of what you are interested in is contained in
Individualism.


> It seems logical that this characteristic would be inversely
> correlated with IND; I'm not sure how important IQ would be to it

Let's put it this way: The Euros are very high IND and moderately low
LTO, and the Asians are very high LTO and moderately low IND. But
what about the brown people? Why, there they are, very low IND, very
low LTO! I can only assume that high intelligence creates a society
which is capable of either building a technological and economic base
and then immediately applying this to hedonistic ends, or, that high
intelligence creates a society which is extremely stable and fairly
safe to live in.


> although a high IQ culture that wanted to preserve cultural
> continuity would probably be better at creating the institutions
> and custorms that would allow its goal to be
> attained. But Middle Eastern cultures are no doubt higher
> on LTO than higher IQ European cultures such as the US.

"No doubt?" Shame on you, Alypius. Shame! But maybe not too much
shame; high LTO cultures tend to think in terms of "either full or no
confidence." It's short term socieites which Hofstede identifies as
having "probabilistic thinking." Unless this relationship is
artifactual, Seekers might be stuck with a low LTO culture. This
isn't all bad, but it does suggest a decreased ability to withstand
low-tech, survivalist conditions; thrift is a necessity during a
civilizational brown out.


> Is it possible that increasing the rules and regulations--both
> de jure and de facto rules--can itself increase UAI?

Never ask a Seeker if something is possible; unless that something
creates an internal contradiction, the answer is "yes." (Apparently
we're more Aristotilian than Platonic. Oh and more STO than LTO;
Asians love contradictions, which explains why they never got
anywhere with science.) But if you want to know whether increasing
uncertainty avoidance in government will *probably* change the
underlying culture, I'm less sure. Maybe. If you run away from
something enough, it might tend to become scarier than if you try to
get used to it.


> > On the other hand, MAS, which I haven't discussed much in
> > the past, is much more interesting. It has implications for
> > eugenics (rich, low MAS cultures have higher birthrates
>
> How much higher? Like Sweden? They're still well below replacement,
> although they did manage stay near replacement longer than
> most European countries.

Page 331: "The relationship between MAS and population growth was
complex. Across the 28 poorer countries MAS showed a positive zero-
order correlation whith population growth; across the 22 wealthier
countries, a significant second-order negative correlation." I can't
give the actual numbers because I don't have them. All I could find
was this:

Respondents saying that "marriage needs children: -.72 IND"


> Yes, and I basically agree with your analysis of them.
> Their feminine tendencies did not arise solely from modern
> Marxism,

(Marxism is more a low PDI than low MAS phenomenon.)


> but had deep roots in their history and culture.
> I'm sure militaristic Sparta was also a
> low MAS culture (compare Viking Scandanavia and warlike
> Celtic Ireland, both, like Sparta, with relatively
> independent women), but culturally
> sophisticated Athens was high MAS. Athens' foreign
> policy was also more expansionist than Sparta's.

Well, Celtic Ireland was also culturally sophisticated. It was
actually an interesting mixture between sophistication and
primitiveness; barbarism. Remember that the Celts had their own
writing system which they invented independently of others (but
seldom used because of social restrictions), understood astrology and
had advanced social networks which allowed the building of
Stonehenge, and had good hygiene - the word for "soap" is Celtic in
origin. I think the Greeks were blessed with a richer climate, and
were possibly more intelligent (although you have to wonder, since
the Greeks were further south, had a greater influence by
middleeastern DNA, and probably also had less Ice Age pressure to
develop high g). If you compare high MAS and low MAS cultures of
equal intelligence today when climate has been largely negated by
technology, I think you'll find that there's no difference in
cultural sophistication.


> > the more obvious culprit: Bioegalitarian hysteria is much
> > less prevalent in Japan.
>
> What do you think accounts for this? Why haven't they "turned
> against themselves" the way the Germans did after both countries'
> defeat in WW2?

* Germans are Individualist

* Germany is low LTO (short term cultures value "tolerance for
others" over thrift)

* Germany is low in Power Distance

* Germany's "peer group" is dominated by Jews who made Germany feel
guilty.


> I don't think American levels of IND need to be increased.
> Can they be lowered without making a country poorer?

You suggest religious education, but I think a little poverty never
hurt anyone. The amount of wealth in the modern West is ridiculous;
even the "poor" live like kings.


> Does adopting English, as both countries have done,
> tend to convey some influence that weakens UAI?)

Nah, Ireland and the Philippines just use religion as a cultural
identifier. At least that's what Hofstede claims, and I believe him.
Like I said, they aren't really Catholic, they just pretend to be
because the genuine non-Catholics piss them off.


> Or increase sex role differentiation? (Or decrease it to lower MAS?)

Sure, why not? Adopt a "kindfeindlich" culture, encourage boys to
fight and never cry, constantly grade your children's performance
relative to one another and to population standards, and insist that
they have to love their parents no matter how despicable those
parents are, and you could probably boost MAS.


> > How to boost PDI: ? Increase stratification ?
>
> Are you sure that low PDI countries are actually less
> stratified than high PDI? Or are the classes merely more
> permeable? Less class consciousness?

Don't ever ask a Seeker if he's sure of anything, either, because the
answer is going to be "no." Nevertheless, wealth is distributed more
evenly in low PDI societies. High PDI societies don't really have a
middle class. If you find some way to eliminate the middle class, you
might find people are more willing to genuflect towwards authority.
But they might just get angry and revolt.

One thing I thought was interesting is that people in low PDI
societies like consultative managers. People in high PDI societies
prefer authoritative managers or "democratic" managers who take votes
for everything and don't manage anything at all. In other words,
there is always a segment in high PDI societies which won't stand for
the stratification. Perhaps this segment is largest in the countries
characterised by the lowest PDI, and this may be what keeps economic
and social equality in place - if the system eliminates the middle
class, they might force the system to change in such a way that a
middle class comes to exist.

Really, though, PDI seems to me like "true" individualism; it's what
I always valued as individualism. People in low PDI nations have much
more leeway in their opinions and are encouraged to think for
themselves. Authorities are treated like ordinary people, and have to
take the opinions of their subordinates into account - people don't
obey tyrants in low PDI nations. There's also much less bureaucracy
and more personal responsibility; people don't pass the buck in low
PDI nations. They might arrange themselves into groups, but within
the group they aren't just part of some deindividualized mass, and
are "allowed" to think and feel. Parents ask their kids what they
think in low PDI nations; parents in high PDI nations dole out
spankings and hugs.

(Incidentally, PDI shows strong effects within society - the upper
classes endorse low PDI values, while the lower classes endorse high
PDI values. This harkens back to my finding that PDI and national IQ
correlate at around -40%.)


> > Note that IND and UAI, taken together, are especially
> > important in
> > dealing with ethnic strife: Collectivistic, Uncertainty Avoiding
> > cultures are full of purges and genocides. You've gotta love the
> > Middle East. Maybe if America is lucky it will be able to
> > recreate the wonderful conditions prevailing over there,
> > over here.
>
> Yes, it does seem to me there is a tendency in the contemporary
> West to become more like the Middle East and the Balkans

They say you should take care not to become what you fight against;
the United States hasn't fought a defensive war for a hundred years.
Meddling is the first sign of increasing UAI: a need to control
sources of anxiety.


> Canada seems to have decisively embraced the ME/Balkans model,
> and the formation of the EU virtually requires such a model,
> although there does seem to be some resistance to accomodating
> "undiluted" Islam.

Oh, by the way, consolidating countries might increase their
collective MAS. High MAS nations tend to be larger. So do high PDI
nations.


> The USA,
> which typically falls in with the dominant trends of other western
> countries, seems to be by far the most ambivalent country regarding
> multiculturalism (although George W. Bush has recently made it
> clear by some of his comments that he is not among the ambivalent;
> he is quite comfortable with moving in a more multiculti direction).
> The seeming ambivalence of the US regarding the current strong
> multicultural trend in Western civ may be due to our rising UAI.
> We are currently incapable of coming down either decisively for it
> or decisively against it, or of openly debating the question.
> Either we will "drift" to a decision, almost imperceptibably
> except in hindsight, which I think is the more likely case; or
> at some point American society will simply "snap" and do
> something drastic, although I have no idea in which direction.

Bah. High UAI cultures don't drift! Drifting is uncertain and
necessarily given over to chance, and high UAI cultures hate chance.
If they're going to invest, it will be in gold and gems, not
intangible "corporations" which could merge, split, or disintegrate
at any moment. If they are going to play games, it will be something
like chess, checkers, or shogi, nothing with cards or dice. And if
they are careening helplessly towards an uncertain future, they will
leap towards it rather than passively waiting to drown in the sea of
possibility that surrounds them. Aggression! Control! Strike first!
Strike now! It is our only defense against the lurking chaos that
lies in store for us all!

It takes a while to change a nation's character, of course, and in
the 1970's UAI was only 46 in America, but Neuroticism has also
increased a full SD over the last 50 years. The Jews had better watch
out for this society they've created in the 20th century to be
their "safe" haven in a "dangerous" world; only the poor, the
numerous, and the unintelligent have nothing to fear from political
purges and genocide.


--Mark