I’ve been talking a lot lately about my hypothesis that rich/modern values differ from poor/traditional values in the way that foragers’ values differed from farmers’. But what about the other main dimension of value variation, what I called “east” vs. “west”? Last november I
I don't know about this theory, I was pretty sure that psychology was coming to the conclusion that the non-genetic impact parents ultimately have on their children's behavior was zero. Parental enculturation does not exist. Judith Harris' book, The Nurture Assumption, which TGGP mentioned earlier, is generally regarded to have sounded the alarm on this subject, and I think it was published 3 years after The Forager Spectrum.
If I recall Harris' theory is that all humans have different personalities for different social situations. All a child's interaction with their parents does is influence their "interacting with adults" personality. Their "interacting with peers" personality, which is the one they use for the majority of their lives, is formed by peer group interactions. Children do not generalize knowledge they learned about their parents other people.
I'm not sure the Russia-to-US axis is one of isolation vs. exposure to invasion by raiders.
For example, most of central and western Asia is near the center for this axis, but they were just as exposed -- more so -- than Russia. India, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, and Egypt have been overrun by nomadic raiders as much as eastern Europe.
Especially for Iran and Pakistan, since they had to deal not only with waves of Turkic groups since medieval times, but since the Indo-Europeans fanned out in the 2nd millennium BC.
Then there are the countries that were exposed but are high on this axis. Austria faced raiding pressure from the steppe nomads, plus the Germanic push from the north (who they didn't see as themselves, which is why Austria has always been a separate country from Germany) and the Slavs from the east. The US faced raiding pressures ever since we got here, lasting up through about 1900 -- from the Indians. Mexico did too. There was raiding pressure before Columbus between Aztecs and others, then between Aztecs and Spaniards, then later between Mexicans and Americans.
The low-end of the axis works better for your view, though there's still Taiwan and South Korea that stand out.
I'm not sure what to label this axis, but isolated-vs-exposed doesn't seem to be the best framework.
Isabel Paterson made a similar point in The God of the Machine back in the 1940s, in comparing American and Japanese styles of childraising as leading respectively to individualist and collectivist attitudes.
Judith Harris argued that peer-raising has been normal throughout most of human history, and that parents are relatively minor influences on the children's behavior as adults. Hillary Clinton's "It Takes a Village" is a reference to such peer-raising. Obviously revealing her lack of loyalty to our superior Western family values!
Steve Sailer has highlighted the lack of paternal involvement in the raising of children in Africa and attributes it to paternity uncertainty (maternal uncles may actually be more involved because they know they are partially related!). But I don't think his theory sounds very "Eastern".
I don't know about this theory, I was pretty sure that psychology was coming to the conclusion that the non-genetic impact parents ultimately have on their children's behavior was zero. Parental enculturation does not exist. Judith Harris' book, The Nurture Assumption, which TGGP mentioned earlier, is generally regarded to have sounded the alarm on this subject, and I think it was published 3 years after The Forager Spectrum.
If I recall Harris' theory is that all humans have different personalities for different social situations. All a child's interaction with their parents does is influence their "interacting with adults" personality. Their "interacting with peers" personality, which is the one they use for the majority of their lives, is formed by peer group interactions. Children do not generalize knowledge they learned about their parents other people.
I'm not sure the Russia-to-US axis is one of isolation vs. exposure to invasion by raiders.
For example, most of central and western Asia is near the center for this axis, but they were just as exposed -- more so -- than Russia. India, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, and Egypt have been overrun by nomadic raiders as much as eastern Europe.
Especially for Iran and Pakistan, since they had to deal not only with waves of Turkic groups since medieval times, but since the Indo-Europeans fanned out in the 2nd millennium BC.
Then there are the countries that were exposed but are high on this axis. Austria faced raiding pressure from the steppe nomads, plus the Germanic push from the north (who they didn't see as themselves, which is why Austria has always been a separate country from Germany) and the Slavs from the east. The US faced raiding pressures ever since we got here, lasting up through about 1900 -- from the Indians. Mexico did too. There was raiding pressure before Columbus between Aztecs and others, then between Aztecs and Spaniards, then later between Mexicans and Americans.
The low-end of the axis works better for your view, though there's still Taiwan and South Korea that stand out.
I'm not sure what to label this axis, but isolated-vs-exposed doesn't seem to be the best framework.
Isabel Paterson made a similar point in The God of the Machine back in the 1940s, in comparing American and Japanese styles of childraising as leading respectively to individualist and collectivist attitudes.
Judith Harris argued that peer-raising has been normal throughout most of human history, and that parents are relatively minor influences on the children's behavior as adults. Hillary Clinton's "It Takes a Village" is a reference to such peer-raising. Obviously revealing her lack of loyalty to our superior Western family values!
Steve Sailer has highlighted the lack of paternal involvement in the raising of children in Africa and attributes it to paternity uncertainty (maternal uncles may actually be more involved because they know they are partially related!). But I don't think his theory sounds very "Eastern".