Some like to paint world history as an epic conflict between deeply divergent visions of civilization, which come down to disputes over a few key values. But if so, just what are those key disputed values? For many decades, our best data on this key value variation has been the
Religious commitment, pride, a work ethic, and having many kids makes sense for families struggling against poverty, while families seeking comfort and happiness from their wealth prefer leisure, health, ecology, sexual freedom, and tolerance. Poor communities struggling against outsiders want solidarity and (they think) central authority, with each family carrying its own load, even if no one is happy. Rich but still competing communities attend more to politics, achievement, determination, and thrift.Rich communities achieve more when divorce and abortion limit the harm of volatile families, while poor communities can’t afford such breakups. Poor competing communities can’t afford arbitrary cultural barriers to getting cash or tech, but such arbitrary restrictions hurt a family less if its neighbors are similarly restricted.
These sound post-hoc to me. You could make equally good arguments in the opposite direction. Poor communities can't afford the drain of bad marriages, or of unwanted pregnancies. Pride, a work ethic, faith in God, and having many children all naturally go along with being rich.
In poor countries, kids are your Social Security. If many die in childhood or at birth, you need to have more to ensure some will survive to *your* old age (40).
The fact English Speaking is a category (despite bias) makes me wonder: how much of these values are a function of language? And how much of language is a function of these values?
This is a low-hanging, corny point, but the selection of +y axis vs. -y axis and +x axis vs. -x axis has a hierarchy manufacture (or hierarchy norms deference) element to it, it seems to me.
It's clear that they're seeing something in the data, but what?
This is survey data. We know from other studies that the results of a survey are often sensitive to the exact wording of the questions. I notice that countries with related languages seem to be clustered on the map. I have no idea how you would separate the effects of translating the questions from the effects of different cultural values (without limiting the survey to speakers of a single language, which would introduce distortions of its own).
Well, it’s not that odd; Israel is essentially a Western nation that happens to be displaced geographically. It might as well be European.
There may be values resembling Western countries, but that is a posteriori for this study. Half the Jews come from or have ancestors who came Muslim countries, about 1/5 came recently from Russia, some of the remainder have Ultra-Orthodox views that are not "protestant", liberal or "Western," and 1/5 of the total are Arab and non-Jewish.
There are a huge number of value disputes going on in the world - one for every polymorphic locus.
If I had to classify those into a few groups, I'd say the most fundamental split in the modern world was probably that between DNA-maximisation and meme maximisation.
Forgot to make explicit that I disagree with Huntington and don't think Israel constitutes its own distinct civilization. I'm skeptical of his other example, Ethiopia, as well.
I don't think Israel is actually being called a Protestant country. It is inside the "Catholic Europe" blob, but is given a different color, as Greece is. I don't think they did that because Greece seems more "Protestant" than is warranted by its position, rather I think the color simply indicates that neither Greece nor Israel is Protestant.
For my own part, I don't have a problem labeling Israel a European country. Samuel Huntington did not include it in his "Western" civilization. It was founded by Europeans and with a government similar to those of western rather than eastern europe (even if that's where many Israelis emigrated from).
What seems odd to me is that Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are put in the green south asian blob rather than red ex-communist (or orthodox) blob, when they clearly fit closer to the reds and are by no means part of the subcontinent.
Prof. Hanson,Well, you may be raising the barrier to my participation too high if you think I should incorporate those explanations and analyses into my post.It seems like you're saying I shouldn't even have made my post without meeting that higher participation barrier. Your posture is noted.
I think such accusations of fraud should come with a bit more detail than "these type of methods are susceptible" - what exactly are you accusing them of doing? They actually publish all their data and you can reconstruct these maps from that data yourself if you like. I'd think with that sort of transparency it would be up to you to take their data and show the fraud you think they've done.
I've thought more about this post, and I lean in the camp that there's hammering of facts going on, although I think that position has been poorly articulated here so far.
I think these type of social science empirical models are extremely susceptible to posture capture and where to situate Israel seems to me to be a classic set-up for nontransparent posturing to manufacture coalition identties.
Still I think the ambition is important: making global value maps. I'd just like the best empiricism to win out over the best myths to capture leading empiricists and their audience constituents.
Yes, we're disproportionately white, male, straight, geeky, english speaking and a lot of us are anglo and ashkenazi. Now how do we create the best models without nontransparent deformations due to being captured by a conflicting motivation of subpopulation trait status maximization (either ours or subpopulations ours are in coordination with) -or, without reacting to posts like this by farcically overreaching in the other direction?
"But if so, just what are those key disputed values?"
There are no values to dispute. For a value to be valid it must arises directly from cause and effect and as of yet I have been unable to find one. All there really is, is our likes and dislikes.
Religious commitment, pride, a work ethic, and having many kids makes sense for families struggling against poverty, while families seeking comfort and happiness from their wealth prefer leisure, health, ecology, sexual freedom, and tolerance. Poor communities struggling against outsiders want solidarity and (they think) central authority, with each family carrying its own load, even if no one is happy. Rich but still competing communities attend more to politics, achievement, determination, and thrift.Rich communities achieve more when divorce and abortion limit the harm of volatile families, while poor communities can’t afford such breakups. Poor competing communities can’t afford arbitrary cultural barriers to getting cash or tech, but such arbitrary restrictions hurt a family less if its neighbors are similarly restricted.
These sound post-hoc to me. You could make equally good arguments in the opposite direction. Poor communities can't afford the drain of bad marriages, or of unwanted pregnancies. Pride, a work ethic, faith in God, and having many children all naturally go along with being rich.
In poor countries, kids are your Social Security. If many die in childhood or at birth, you need to have more to ensure some will survive to *your* old age (40).
The fact English Speaking is a category (despite bias) makes me wonder: how much of these values are a function of language? And how much of language is a function of these values?
Overcoming bias? Perhaps you should address biases in value nomenclature.
This is a low-hanging, corny point, but the selection of +y axis vs. -y axis and +x axis vs. -x axis has a hierarchy manufacture (or hierarchy norms deference) element to it, it seems to me.
It's clear that they're seeing something in the data, but what?
This is survey data. We know from other studies that the results of a survey are often sensitive to the exact wording of the questions. I notice that countries with related languages seem to be clustered on the map. I have no idea how you would separate the effects of translating the questions from the effects of different cultural values (without limiting the survey to speakers of a single language, which would introduce distortions of its own).
Well, it’s not that odd; Israel is essentially a Western nation that happens to be displaced geographically. It might as well be European.
There may be values resembling Western countries, but that is a posteriori for this study. Half the Jews come from or have ancestors who came Muslim countries, about 1/5 came recently from Russia, some of the remainder have Ultra-Orthodox views that are not "protestant", liberal or "Western," and 1/5 of the total are Arab and non-Jewish.
There are a huge number of value disputes going on in the world - one for every polymorphic locus.
If I had to classify those into a few groups, I'd say the most fundamental split in the modern world was probably that between DNA-maximisation and meme maximisation.
Actually those would be group value names, not axis names.
Ok, these are my axes.
1. Survival should be "safety and belonging values".
2. Traditional should be "belonging values".
3. Rational should definitely be esteem/achievement values.
4. Self-expression should be self-actualization values.
Obviously this is based on Maslow's hierarchy.
Forgot to make explicit that I disagree with Huntington and don't think Israel constitutes its own distinct civilization. I'm skeptical of his other example, Ethiopia, as well.
I don't think Israel is actually being called a Protestant country. It is inside the "Catholic Europe" blob, but is given a different color, as Greece is. I don't think they did that because Greece seems more "Protestant" than is warranted by its position, rather I think the color simply indicates that neither Greece nor Israel is Protestant.
For my own part, I don't have a problem labeling Israel a European country. Samuel Huntington did not include it in his "Western" civilization. It was founded by Europeans and with a government similar to those of western rather than eastern europe (even if that's where many Israelis emigrated from).
What seems odd to me is that Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are put in the green south asian blob rather than red ex-communist (or orthodox) blob, when they clearly fit closer to the reds and are by no means part of the subcontinent.
Prof. Hanson,Well, you may be raising the barrier to my participation too high if you think I should incorporate those explanations and analyses into my post.It seems like you're saying I shouldn't even have made my post without meeting that higher participation barrier. Your posture is noted.
I think such accusations of fraud should come with a bit more detail than "these type of methods are susceptible" - what exactly are you accusing them of doing? They actually publish all their data and you can reconstruct these maps from that data yourself if you like. I'd think with that sort of transparency it would be up to you to take their data and show the fraud you think they've done.
I've thought more about this post, and I lean in the camp that there's hammering of facts going on, although I think that position has been poorly articulated here so far.
I think these type of social science empirical models are extremely susceptible to posture capture and where to situate Israel seems to me to be a classic set-up for nontransparent posturing to manufacture coalition identties.
Still I think the ambition is important: making global value maps. I'd just like the best empiricism to win out over the best myths to capture leading empiricists and their audience constituents.
Yes, we're disproportionately white, male, straight, geeky, english speaking and a lot of us are anglo and ashkenazi. Now how do we create the best models without nontransparent deformations due to being captured by a conflicting motivation of subpopulation trait status maximization (either ours or subpopulations ours are in coordination with) -or, without reacting to posts like this by farcically overreaching in the other direction?
"But if so, just what are those key disputed values?"
There are no values to dispute. For a value to be valid it must arises directly from cause and effect and as of yet I have been unable to find one. All there really is, is our likes and dislikes.