Ye Olde Pub (The English Pub)

[Anarkhos]

 

In the bigger picture, it is depletion of resources. If some of the resources used for making cars are rare, more cars produced than what is "necessary" would drive up the prices for these resources (to such a degree that it could actually be 'felt' somewhere). This in turn could in theory lead to greater expenses in, say, anything from healthcare to production of food.

 

This answer is consistent with the idea of social conformity, instead of his actions having direct personal consequence, norwegians are encouraged to think how their actions impact society as a whole in ways that are uncommon in more individualistic societies.

 

Such things will effect the car buyer himself as well. The central point is: it's smart to not use more resources than what is needed. This has nothing to do with social conformity.

 

Irresponsible also in the sense that there could simply be better ways to spend the money.

The sin of self indulgence? Should spend his money on something that would benefit society?

 

No, he could invest them to secure his future, he could buy a boat instead yet another car etc. The options are many.

 

 

I strongly doubt that, and there is nothing in what you write that could back up this claim.

 

I disagree, and wealth flaunting was the most common verbage used to describe the phenomenon.

 

So they thought he was boasting? That's a different topic altogether.

 

I worry that some these programs will lead to isolation because many of us have a tendency to search for media that only reinforces our own biases and beliefs and the internet allows us to live all in our own universe without significantly challenging those beliefs. The kookier become kookier as conspiracy theorists can unite and spread propaganda like never before without challenge from more sane people.

 

There are also plenty of open forums like these on the web that allows conflicting views to meet each other.

[jjkoggan]

 

Such things will effect the car buyer himself as well.

Perhaps very weakly and indirectly, but your criticism is about how his actions affect society at large, not how his actions directly affected him or those near him.

 

The central point is: it's smart to not use more resources than what is needed. This has nothing to do with social conformity.

When one is criticized for not thinking about how his/her actions affect others, it is almost always to impose social conformity. What will other's think! Don't they realize how it affects everyone else!

 

A criticism regarding how one's action might affect themselves would not be.

 

Also what one "needs" is very subjective. I have 3 cars because I think I "need" them. On the other hand I could probably get away with a bicycle if I didn't mind riding it to work in the winter. I am sure many poor people would say I don't "need" 3 cars, since they make do with much less. In any event, the idea of only buying what one "needs" because of how it affects others is clearly a concept grounded in placing the group ahead of the individual, something prevalent in all societies with high degrees of social conformity.

 

 

No, he could invest them to secure his future, he could buy a boat instead yet another car etc. The options are many.

 

 

Not sure a boat is better investment than a car. How far should he go, not buy anything wasteful, romantic or self-indulgent? For a wealthy man a car might be relatively cheap. Should I be criticized for having a color TV?

 

So they thought he was boasting? That's a different topic altogether.

 

Modesty is a core jante law value.

 

There are also plenty of open forums like these on the web that allows conflicting views to meet each other.

 

There are, but you have to seek them out. I think human nature is such that more of us tend to seek those who are like-minded than who are different.

[Anarkhos]

Time for some replies.

 

 

Such things will effect the car buyer himself as well.

Perhaps very weakly and indirectly, but your criticism is about how his actions affect society at large, not how his actions directly affected him or those near him.

 

The central point is: it's smart to not use more resources than what is needed. This has nothing to do with social conformity.

When one is criticized for not thinking about how his/her actions affect others, it is almost always to impose social conformity. What will other's think! Don't they realize how it affects everyone else!

 

Such effects should be expected to be weak, regardles of which person we have in mind - the richer person, or a different, random, person (it is true that other people, would in sum become more affected, but that is a different topic). The rich person inhabits this world as much as anyone else, and would on average as an individual not be less affected than anyone else.

 

 

Also what one "needs" is very subjective. I have 3 cars because I think I "need" them. On the other hand I could probably get away with a bicycle if I didn't mind riding it to work in the winter. I am sure many poor people would say I don't "need" 3 cars, since they make do with much less. In any event, the idea of only buying what one "needs" because of how it affects others is clearly a concept grounded in placing the group ahead of the individual, something prevalent in all societies with high degrees of social conformity.

 

It's partially subjective. It would seem really pointless to have 3 microwave ovens when you only use on of them; having the two others in the pantry.

 

 

No, he could invest them to secure his future, he could buy a boat instead yet another car etc. The options are many.

 

 

Not sure a boat is better investment than a car. How far should he go, not buy anything wasteful, romantic or self-indulgent? For a wealthy man a car might be relatively cheap. Should I be criticized for having a color TV?

 

If he already has two cars, and zero boats; it would make sense to buy a boat instead of yet another car; or whatver else that would suit his interests more than a boat.

 

I am not criticising anyone for how they spend their money, that's their choice. I am focusing on the arguments, leaving personal opinions aside. At the same time, there is huge difference between criticising someone because you think they should have done it different, or criticising them simply because you think the decision is daft, while at the same time accepting their decision - because in the end, it is none of your buisness (as opposed to the other way of criticising, where it is implied that it actually is your buisness; that you command some sort of moral authority).

 

One of the main points that I have been trying to make, is that your view of the Norwegian society is one that is very caricaturistic. I am sure there are persons in this society, as in any society, who are envious of others, and who would try to bring them down because of this.

 

The persons in the car example, are not conforming with the Norwegians that I personally meet in everyday life. The Jante law is fiction, and an excuse that anyone who cannot tolerate criticism in this society will refer to as often as they can, in an attempt to escape the accusations. But very few here would take them seriously, because the Jante law is in Norway considered a caricature, and not much else (or that is my understanding of it, anyway). The truth is that individualism stands pretty strong in Norway.

 

It's for a reason that some of the thickest roots of black metal can be found in Norway, a musical genre which embodies individualism. A significant portion of these musicians came not from the biggest cities, but from smaller places - even the countryside. So already at relatively young ages did they express great individualistic determination.

 

In the Norwegian society, as in any other society, people pick groups which they can identify themselves with. People outside this group will most of the time simply not matter. Egalitarianism is for the law, not for everday life.

 

The Jante law is tool for promoting individualism, and where was it created? Yes. So please, the jante law is pure fiction.

Endret 26. august 2011 av Anarkhos

[jjkoggan]

Time for some replies.

 

Such effects should be expected to be weak, regardles of which person we have in mind - the richer person, or a different, random, person (it is true that other people, would in sum become more affected, but that is a different topic). The rich person inhabits this world as much as anyone else, and would on average as an individual not be less affected than anyone else.

A wealthy person is less affected than the less wealthy by increased costs since each increase would be a smaller percentage of their overall wealth compared to those less wealthy.

 

In any event your answer was about how wasteful indulgence affects society at large.

 

 

It's partially subjective. It would seem really pointless to have 3 microwave ovens when you only use on of them; having the two others in the pantry.

Society got along fine without any microwave ovens

 

 

I am not criticising anyone for how they spend their money, that's their choice. I am focusing on the arguments, leaving personal opinions aside. At the same time, there is huge difference between criticising someone because you think they should have done it different, or criticising them simply because you think the decision is daft, while at the same time accepting their decision - because in the end, it is none of your buisness (as opposed to the other way of criticising, where it is implied that it actually is your buisness; that you command some sort of moral authority).

Envy is the central tenet here. When one criticizes others for things that others posess that don't affect them directly, envy is often behind the scenes. Explaining why they shouldn't have 3 cars is irelevant, making it their business by complaining (no matter whether it is due to poor decision making or not)is just an excuse.

 

 

One of the main points that I have been trying to make, is that your view of the Norwegian society is one that is very caricaturistic. I am sure there are persons in this society, as in any society, who are envious of others, and who would try to bring them down because of this.

Yes, the real norwegian culture is much more nuanced and complicated than summing it all up in a simple law. Still, it is often difficult to see these average patterns of behavior up close especially without living in other, very different cultures to compare to. Choosing to create a society in which differences in wealth is amongst the lowest of all western nations and the fact that unlike handicapped students, gifted students are not offered special programs gives objective evidence of some of the core jante laws. Individualism tends to correlate well with liberalism (libertarian politics) whereas collectivism correlates well with socialism. The former puts the highest value on the indvidual while the latter places a higher value on society at large. Norway's income leveling political system and its constant criticism of the USA for allowing poverty and great wealth and other aspects specific to a more individualistic society show that it is not just a caricature but a dominant cultural feature.

 

Are norwegians creative and individualistic on a local level? Yes, of course, but there are limits to that creativity and differentness that are more restrictive than in more individualistic societies.

 

It's for a reason that some of the thickest roots of black metal can be found in Norway, a musical genre which embodies individualism. A significant portion of these musicians came not from the biggest cities, but from smaller places - even the countryside. So already at relatively young ages did they express great individualistic determination.

 

Innovations in modern music of the last 100 years have mostly come from the more individualistic nations of the world, England and the USA, from jazz to punk rock and everything in between.

[Anarkhos]

Time for some replies.

 

Such effects should be expected to be weak, regardles of which person we have in mind - the richer person, or a different, random, person (it is true that other people, would in sum become more affected, but that is a different topic). The rich person inhabits this world as much as anyone else, and would on average as an individual not be less affected than anyone else.

A wealthy person is less affected than the less wealthy by increased costs since each increase would be a smaller percentage of their overall wealth compared to those less wealthy.

 

In any event your answer was about how wasteful indulgence affects society at large.

 

It can't see how it was. If you think about this in a more vague sense, you could see that the person could contract some sort of extraordinarily rare disease. And it turns out the treatment of this disease would require a large amount of rare earth, for some reason, which happened to be used in luxury cars such as those he bought (or so we'll say he did), and so he (and others) has helped pushing up the prices for these elements to such a level that he cannot afford the treatment. It's simply too expensive.

 

This example becomes more powerfull when you look closer at the definition of individualism, as I'll do below.

 

I am not criticising anyone for how they spend their money, that's their choice. I am focusing on the arguments, leaving personal opinions aside. At the same time, there is huge difference between criticising someone because you think they should have done it different, or criticising them simply because you think the decision is daft, while at the same time accepting their decision - because in the end, it is none of your buisness (as opposed to the other way of criticising, where it is implied that it actually is your buisness; that you command some sort of moral authority).

Envy is the central tenet here. When one criticizes others for things that others posess that don't affect them directly, envy is often behind the scenes. Explaining why they shouldn't have 3 cars is irelevant, making it their business by complaining (no matter whether it is due to poor decision making or not)is just an excuse.

 

It doesn't have to be envy, it could be some of your children who just won the lottery.

 

 

One of the main points that I have been trying to make, is that your view of the Norwegian society is one that is very caricaturistic. I am sure there are persons in this society, as in any society, who are envious of others, and who would try to bring them down because of this.

Yes, the real norwegian culture is much more nuanced and complicated than summing it all up in a simple law. Still, it is often difficult to see these average patterns of behavior up close especially without living in other, very different cultures to compare to. Choosing to create a society in which differences in wealth is amongst the lowest of all western nations and the fact that unlike handicapped students, gifted students are not offered special programs gives objective evidence of some of the core jante laws. Individualism tends to correlate well with liberalism (libertarian politics) whereas collectivism correlates well with socialism. The former puts the highest value on the indvidual while the latter places a higher value on society at large. Norway's income leveling political system and its constant criticism of the USA for allowing poverty and great wealth and other aspects specific to a more individualistic society show that it is not just a caricature but a dominant cultural feature.

 

Are norwegians creative and individualistic on a local level? Yes, of course, but there are limits to that creativity and differentness that are more restrictive than in more individualistic societies.

 

Here I'd like to focus on the definition of individualism. It seems as if your definition of individualism is equal to that of egoism. Personally, I'll draw the line somewhere between damage to others though action, and damage to others through inaction.

 

The first is not irreconcilable with individualism, but unlike the latter, it is not required as something that must be deemed acceptable for someone who is an individualist. First I'll just specify that 'damage' in this context could be anything from loosing 'benefits' (such as social company) at one extreme, to murder at the other.

 

That is to say that an individualist could be opposed to stealing money from his old mother, but that he could be lax when it comes to seeing her at the nursing home because he would rather focus on his own plans. The first action is cleary 'damage' through action, the other through inaction.

 

If we then return to the 3 cars, we see that buying 2 extra cars has the potential to cause damage through action to others. If he was worried about that, it would not make him any less of an individualist, only less selfish. Likewise, I oppose that carelessness would make him more of an individualist (nor would it make him less), only more selfish.

 

Spreading wealth is an issue at state level, it is not something that most individuals themselves would be concerned with. It is not like people in neighbourhoods share their wealth with each other.

 

It's for a reason that some of the thickest roots of black metal can be found in Norway, a musical genre which embodies individualism. A significant portion of these musicians came not from the biggest cities, but from smaller places - even the countryside. So already at relatively young ages did they express great individualistic determination.

 

Innovations in modern music of the last 100 years have mostly come from the more individualistic nations of the world, England and the USA, from jazz to punk rock and everything in between.

 

You cannot compare a country of less than 5 millions to countries of 300 millions (!) and 60 millions. The U.S. also has a multicultural history, with people coming from places like the U.K, Ireland, Africa, Italy etc.; and I am sure that is bound to help a lot when it comes to cultural creativity. The U.K., too, has a more multicultural history, with people and cultures coming in from all of its culturally diverse colonies.

Endret 27. august 2011 av Anarkhos

[jjkoggan]

Spreading wealth is an issue at state level, it is not something that most individuals themselves would be concerned with. It is not like people in neighbourhoods share their wealth with each other.

The fact that a democratic nation spreads wealth shows that a majority of their citizens believe the weakest in society need to be helped by taking from the wealthy. It shows the "average view" of norwegian society(in all those small neighborhoods) that is egalitarian, they believe the "haves" must share with the "have nots". Systems in norwegian society are obsessively analyzed so that the "system" or environment doesn't disadvantage the weak. A social democracy believes (majority opinion) that collective societal environments are more responsible for social ills than individual behavior.

 

More individualistic societies take the view that the individual is mostly responsible for their lot in life, and that others don't have the right to take what their actions have created from them.

[jjkoggan]

Here are results from a researcher who attempted to measure individualism in Norway and Scandinavia.

 

 

 

 

 

Here are the USA results:

 

 

Summary of USA results:

 

There are only seven (7) countries in the Geert Hofstede research that have Individualism (IDV) as their highest Dimension: USA (91), Australia (90), United Kingdom (89), Netherlands and Canada (80), and Italy (76).

 

 

 

The high Individualism (IDV) ranking for the United States indicates a society with a more individualistic attitude and relatively loose bonds with others. The populace is more self-reliant and looks out for themselves and their close family members.

 

 

 

The next highest Hofstede Dimension is Masculinity (MAS) with a ranking of 62, compared with a world average of 50. This indicates the country experiences a higher degree of gender differentiation of roles. The male dominates a significant portion of the society and power structure. This situation generates a female population that becomes more assertive and competitive, with women shifting toward the male role model and away from their female role.

 

 

 

World averages shown above are: 55 - 43 - 50 - 64 - 45

 

 

 

The United States was included in the group of countries that had the Long Term Orientation (LTO) Dimension added. The LTO is the lowest Dimension for the US at 29, compared to the world average of 45. This low LTO ranking is indicative of the societies' belief in meeting its obligations and tends to reflect an appreciation for cultural traditions.

 

 

 

The next lowest ranking Dimension for the United States is Power Distance (PDI) at 40, compared to the world Average of 55. This is indicative of a greater equality between societal levels, including government, organizations, and even within families. This orientation reinforces a cooperative interaction across power levels and creates a more stable cultural environment.

 

 

 

The last Geert Hofstede Dimension for the US is Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI), with a ranking of 46, compared to the world average of 64. A low ranking in the Uncertainty Avoidance Dimension is indicative of a society that has fewer rules and does not attempt to control all outcomes and results. It also has a greater level of tolerance for a variety of ideas, thoughts, and beliefs.

[Anarkhos]

Spreading wealth is an issue at state level, it is not something that most individuals themselves would be concerned with. It is not like people in neighbourhoods share their wealth with each other.

The fact that a democratic nation spreads wealth shows that a majority of their citizens believe the weakest in society need to be helped by taking from the wealthy. It shows the "average view" of norwegian society(in all those small neighborhoods) that is egalitarian, they believe the "haves" must share with the "have nots". Systems in norwegian society are obsessively analyzed so that the "system" or environment doesn't disadvantage the weak. A social democracy believes (majority opinion) that collective societal environments are more responsible for social ills than individual behavior.

 

More individualistic societies take the view that the individual is mostly responsible for their lot in life, and that others don't have the right to take what their actions have created from them.

 

While it shows that, obviously, the resistance to such sharing must have an upper limit (given that it is a democracy) - the views on the sharing in the populace have a pretty rough path to travel before they end up in applied politics. It is, for one, only a very small portion of the population (a political 'elite') that actually signs the bills and put the numbers and percentages on the papers that are to be stamped.

 

I think one must be really careful when comparing the views and practices of a government/country to the population, rule by the people or not.

 

Here are results from a researcher who attempted to measure individualism in Norway and Scandinavia.

 

 

 

 

 

Here are the USA results:

 

 

Summary of USA results:

 

There are only seven (7) countries in the Geert Hofstede research that have Individualism (IDV) as their highest Dimension: USA (91), Australia (90), United Kingdom (89), Netherlands and Canada (80), and Italy (76).

 

 

 

The high Individualism (IDV) ranking for the United States indicates a society with a more individualistic attitude and relatively loose bonds with others. The populace is more self-reliant and looks out for themselves and their close family members.

 

 

 

The next highest Hofstede Dimension is Masculinity (MAS) with a ranking of 62, compared with a world average of 50. This indicates the country experiences a higher degree of gender differentiation of roles. The male dominates a significant portion of the society and power structure. This situation generates a female population that becomes more assertive and competitive, with women shifting toward the male role model and away from their female role.

 

 

 

World averages shown above are: 55 - 43 - 50 - 64 - 45

 

 

 

The United States was included in the group of countries that had the Long Term Orientation (LTO) Dimension added. The LTO is the lowest Dimension for the US at 29, compared to the world average of 45. This low LTO ranking is indicative of the societies' belief in meeting its obligations and tends to reflect an appreciation for cultural traditions.

 

 

 

The next lowest ranking Dimension for the United States is Power Distance (PDI) at 40, compared to the world Average of 55. This is indicative of a greater equality between societal levels, including government, organizations, and even within families. This orientation reinforces a cooperative interaction across power levels and creates a more stable cultural environment.

 

 

 

 

The last Geert Hofstede Dimension for the US is Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI), with a ranking of 46, compared to the world average of 64. A low ranking in the Uncertainty Avoidance Dimension is indicative of a society that has fewer rules and does not attempt to control all outcomes and results. It also has a greater level of tolerance for a variety of ideas, thoughts, and beliefs.

 

What's equally important to the results of a study, is the methods and the definitions (criteria). How was 'individualism' defined for this study? On the two illustrations, the gap in the IDV rank for the U.S. and Norway is not too big, and could potentially be filled with different definitions.

 

Part of the defintion appears to be this:

 

Individualism (IDV) on the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, that is the degree to which individuals are inte-grated into groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The word 'collectivism' in this sense has no political meaning: it refers to the group, not to the state. Again, the issue addressed by this dimension is an extremely fundamental one, regarding all societies in the world.

 

The thinking appears to be that the smaller number of people that you 'care for', the more individualistic you are. Obviously, without further criteria, this opens up for huge flaws - such as a son working as hard as he can to maintain normal activity at his old parents' farm, while at the same time going to great lengths to make sure that the parents can live at the farm until they die, rather than sending them to a nursing home; primarily because he knows this is what his parents want.

 

This is the opposite of individualism, it is self-sacrifice. A good defintion of individualism, in my view, must be capable of identifying situations such as these. Another example is a small, closely knit family where the parents exert great pressure on their offspring when it comes to personal choices, it be ideology, religion, lifestyle etc. (think of a smaller version of the WBC, for instance).

[jjkoggan]

 

While it shows that, obviously, the resistance to such sharing must have an upper limit (given that it is a democracy) - the views on the sharing in the populace have a pretty rough path to travel before they end up in applied politics. It is, for one, only a very small portion of the population (a political 'elite') that actually signs the bills and put the numbers and percentages on the papers that are to be stamped.

 

I think one must be really careful when comparing the views and practices of a government/country to the population, rule by the people or not.

 

Difficult to defend 50 years of much higher than average income redistribution by claiming that elites have full control over norwegian society. Norway is consistently rated one of the most democratic societies in the world.

 

It is no coincidence that the nations with the highest individualism scores have some of the highest income inequality in the western world.

 

What's equally important to the results of a study, is the methods and the definitions (criteria). How was 'individualism' defined for this study? On the two illustrations, the gap in the IDV rank for the U.S. and Norway is not too big, and could potentially be filled with different definitions.

 

Hofstedes methods were business oriented and values based, asking people a series of questions about what they value most at the workplace, freedom, security, advancement, training, teamwork etc.. You can get some of the methodologies here or just buy the book:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=Cayp_Um4O9gC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=hofstede+hermes+questionnaire&source=bl&ots=V2CCIyTIJ3&sig=Wdh46EvWw-0ye6bYWrjp1f-P4dc&hl=en&ei=HNJeTuKRLdSisQLJpIk-&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=hofstede%20hermes%20questionnaire&f=true

 

 

The thinking appears to be that the smaller number of people that you 'care for', the more individualistic you are. Obviously, without further criteria, this opens up for huge flaws - such as a son working as hard as he can to maintain normal activity at his old parents' farm, while at the same time going to great lengths to make sure that the parents can live at the farm until they die, rather than sending them to a nursing home; primarily because he knows this is what his parents want.

 

This had little to do with his research, see above link. And yes, every survey is flawed, but this one is supported by other studies also.

[Anarkhos]

While it shows that, obviously, the resistance to such sharing must have an upper limit (given that it is a democracy) - the views on the sharing in the populace have a pretty rough path to travel before they end up in applied politics. It is, for one, only a very small portion of the population (a political 'elite') that actually signs the bills and put the numbers and percentages on the papers that are to be stamped.

 

I think one must be really careful when comparing the views and practices of a government/country to the population, rule by the people or not.

 

Difficult to defend 50 years of much higher than average income redistribution by claiming that elites have full control over norwegian society. Norway is consistently rated one of the most democratic societies in the world.

 

Not only is it only an elite that has the relevant powers, but it is also these people that know what's possible and what's realistic, so presumeably this is something that will always set them apart from the rest of the populace. They know the mechanisms.

 

Furthermore, there is a question of how much momentum older decisions could/do carry; how much has the various relevant rates changed, say, since 1920? Do some older pivotal adjustments (adjustments following 'revolutions' or otherwise massive changes) carry so much weight that even reformists end up changing rates very little? I have no idea what the answer to the question is, so that's why I am asking. Initial values will both subconsciously and consciously affect any successor when it comes to what numbers he would like to put instead.

 

It is no coincidence that the nations with the highest individualism scores have some of the highest income inequality in the western world.

 

Well, then one would first have to make sure that there is an agreement on the definition of individualism; as I'll add some details on below.

 

What's equally important to the results of a study, is the methods and the definitions (criteria). How was 'individualism' defined for this study? On the two illustrations, the gap in the IDV rank for the U.S. and Norway is not too big, and could potentially be filled with different definitions.

 

Hofstedes methods were business oriented and values based, asking people a series of questions about what they value most at the workplace, freedom, security, advancement, training, teamwork etc.. You can get some of the methodologies here or just buy the book:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=Cayp_Um4O9gC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=hofstede+hermes+questionnaire&source=bl&ots=V2CCIyTIJ3&sig=Wdh46EvWw-0ye6bYWrjp1f-P4dc&hl=en&ei=HNJeTuKRLdSisQLJpIk-&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=hofstede%20hermes%20questionnaire&f=true

 

 

The thinking appears to be that the smaller number of people that you 'care for', the more individualistic you are. Obviously, without further criteria, this opens up for huge flaws - such as a son working as hard as he can to maintain normal activity at his old parents' farm, while at the same time going to great lengths to make sure that the parents can live at the farm until they die, rather than sending them to a nursing home; primarily because he knows this is what his parents want.

 

This had little to do with his research, see above link. And yes, every survey is flawed, but this one is supported by other studies also.

 

Not only interested in the definition of that particular survey, but also if there exists a widely accepted and precise definition of individualism; and to what extent I would agree with it.

 

One, perhaps dubious, way to twist things, is to look at wealth redistribution in the following manner: that it is about giving each individual a chance to get far. Collectivism, which is opposed to individualism, will only strengthen the individual where it benefits the whole. One must not forget that the richer individuals are not at all robbed of their wealth - it is not like that there is an upper limit for an individual's fortune, beyond which any income must be paid directly to the state. That would certainly be collectivism - "what would an individual need this much money for? This wealth accumulation couldn't possibly benefit the whole!"

 

That is indeed not at all what the wealth redistrubition in this society is for; it is about giving each individual a more equal starting point. It's primarily role, is to set a lower limit: no one will start at zero. In Norway, if you have rich parents, then certain forms of education will be more accessible. And for any education, having parents giving you 'pocket money' will make the life as a student/pupil easier.

 

So to sum up, the wealth redistribution has precious little to do with collectivism. Now, I do pesonally see some problems with wealth redistribution from an individualistic point of view; so that's why I am trying to play down it's role in Norwegian society; as it could potentially be a symptom of collectivism, which I suggest is not stronger here than other places.

[jjkoggan]

Not only is it only an elite that has the relevant powers, but it is also these people that know what's possible and what's realistic, so presumeably this is something that will always set them apart from the rest of the populace. They know the mechanisms.

 

Furthermore, there is a question of how much momentum older decisions could/do carry; how much has the various relevant rates changed, say, since 1920? Do some older pivotal adjustments (adjustments following 'revolutions' or otherwise massive changes) carry so much weight that even reformists end up changing rates very little? I have no idea what the answer to the question is, so that's why I am asking. Initial values will both subconsciously and consciously affect any successor when it comes to what numbers he would like to put instead.

 

 

 

Not only do the elite support income redistribution but opinion polls mirror this popular support.'

 

 

A vast majority of Norwegians support paying even higher taxes than they already do, if it will preserve their country’s social welfare state. Fully 75 percent are willing to pay more tax for good health and elder care

 

And this collectivist impulse includes the wealthiest norwegians. The salient collectivist phrase is in bold below. It demonstrates that many norwegians do not feel that the individual is not the most important unit of society, there is an inherent desire and responsibility that all share and participate to some degree in the collective wealth of the nation. In a purely individualist society, one is only responsible for himself/herself and has nothing taken away from them, nor nothing given to them.

 

All western societies are individualistic because individual rights are the centerpiece of democracy. Still, most western societies to varying degrees think collectively and take from those that have and give to those that have not. The degree of this redistribution of resources is an indication of how much society thinks collectively or not.

 

 

 

Despite recent complaints over Norway’s tax system from shipowner John Fredriksen, a majority of wealthy Norwegians also claim they’re willing to pay higher taxes in order for all Norwegians to have good health and elder care. Their support comes despite full realization that in their case, they will “give more than they receive,” noted Hellevik.

 

 

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/09/05/welfare-system-worth-higher-taxes/

[Bear^]

The problem isn't money in Norway, the problem is the people behind the money, those that have to make sure they're used well.

 

We're using too much on nothing, and all too much just to look cool towards the world. I don't say we shouldn't help those in need, but Norway can't help the whole world alone. And doesn't our own people have equal rights to the money?

 

Like the elder people, who have worked for the country their entire life, don't they deserve something better than what they get today? Haven't they through their years of labour earned that much of respect from the government?

 

In my opinion, we've lived too long under 1 rule set. We need changes, what ever they are, 8 years with the Labour party has yielded no good results other than a whole lot of empty promises. We need something new, and fresh, someone who dares to think new. We have a gang of old rotten politicians who have taken root up there, refusing to change. They need to be weeded out, and new blood needs to replace it. That's the only way to get any changes in this country.

[Anarkhos]

Not only is it only an elite that has the relevant powers, but it is also these people that know what's possible and what's realistic, so presumeably this is something that will always set them apart from the rest of the populace. They know the mechanisms.

 

Furthermore, there is a question of how much momentum older decisions could/do carry; how much has the various relevant rates changed, say, since 1920? Do some older pivotal adjustments (adjustments following 'revolutions' or otherwise massive changes) carry so much weight that even reformists end up changing rates very little? I have no idea what the answer to the question is, so that's why I am asking. Initial values will both subconsciously and consciously affect any successor when it comes to what numbers he would like to put instead.

 

 

 

Not only do the elite support income redistribution but opinion polls mirror this popular support.'

 

 

A vast majority of Norwegians support paying even higher taxes than they already do, if it will preserve their country’s social welfare state. Fully 75 percent are willing to pay more tax for good health and elder care

 

And this collectivist impulse includes the wealthiest norwegians. The salient collectivist phrase is in bold below. It demonstrates that many norwegians do not feel that the individual is not the most important unit of society, there is an inherent desire and responsibility that all share and participate to some degree in the collective wealth of the nation. In a purely individualist society, one is only responsible for himself/herself and has nothing taken away from them, nor nothing given to them.

 

All western societies are individualistic because individual rights are the centerpiece of democracy. Still, most western societies to varying degrees think collectively and take from those that have and give to those that have not. The degree of this redistribution of resources is an indication of how much society thinks collectively or not.

 

 

 

Despite recent complaints over Norway’s tax system from shipowner John Fredriksen, a majority of wealthy Norwegians also claim they’re willing to pay higher taxes in order for all Norwegians to have good health and elder care. Their support comes despite full realization that in their case, they will “give more than they receive,” noted Hellevik.

 

 

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/09/05/welfare-system-worth-higher-taxes/

 

 

First, let me post my own 'version' of your 1st quote:

 

A vast majority of Norwegians support paying even higher taxes than they already do, if it will preserve their country’s social welfare state. Fully 75 percent are willing to pay more tax for good health and elder care

 

that's societial conservatism; the preservation of a system that they know. It is my understanding that many Americans, through NGOs, are fond of giving monety to charities. Bill Gates being one prominent, if not representative, example. With such a perspective, it does not necessarily become a question of governing.

 

I mean, when the participants in the survey were asked, did they actually consider the fact that when they opt for paying more; that if this was made into law, all of their fellow countrymen would also have to pay more? If not, then this case would not necessarily be much different from the charitable giving of Americans; though one would need the numbers in order to do a proper check.

 

All this aside, if you are rich; let's say you have 1 billion NOK, then giving away 1 million is not much of a sacrifice, it will hardly be felt; it's one in a thousand. But of course, if we define the individualist as someone who would never help anyone without profitting from it, then any sacrifice would indeed be too much to ask for. But I think you would have to look hard for such humans.

 

There is, however, another complicating factor - and that is any satisfaction that could be felt from helping other people. You could say that such a specie is not as oriented towards individualism as it could be, but from the perspective of this specie, helping others in itself does not have to be particularly collectivistic.

[2ball_]

This thread used to be a place to chat about this and that. Then it died and was reborn by the means of some epic discussion I won't even start to.. ... Christ!

[Bear^]

It's like the phoenix, once it burns down, you never know what comes out of the ashes

[jjkoggan]

It's like the phoenix, once it burns down, you never know what comes out of the ashes

 

 

So its bottom of the ninth, you are losin', you are on deck and there is no hope, so what do you do? Get a pinch hitter, hit a fly, go for a grand slam? I say make it more interesting, cuss at the ref, diss the other side, start a brawl and tell lies about it afterwards!

[Bear^]

Erm, I agree on the disagreements to erm, agree on your statements ....

*grabs a pint* yup, that's about right .....

[jjkoggan]

Erm, I agree on the disagreements to erm, agree on your statements ....

*grabs a pint* yup, that's about right .....

 

Just as a tip, "grabbing a pint" is very english and verly rarely american english. Since they were baseball metaphors, one would more likely grab a "brew", which unlike english football stadiums is sold openly from vendors walking up and down the stadium

 

Are you familiar with american baseball and understand the metaphors? Would you know how to throw a slider or screwball? They were used in WWII to clearly identify german spies, since they were unfamiliar with baseball lore.

 

And now... it is time for the 7th inning stretch. We all sing "Take me out to the ball game, take me out with the crowd...

 

Truly understand baseball and you pretty much understand americans.

[jjkoggan]

 

First, let me post my own 'version' of your 1st quote:

 

A vast majority of Norwegians support paying even higher taxes than they already do, if it will preserve their country’s social welfare state. Fully 75 percent are willing to pay more tax for good health and elder care

 

that's societial conservatism; the preservation of a system that they know. It is my understanding that many Americans, through NGOs, are fond of giving monety to charities. Bill Gates being one prominent, if not representative, example. With such a perspective, it does not necessarily become a question of governing.

 

Yes inertia is a factor here except that the survey showed that norwegians support the idea of welfare state redistribution, that it is not a political elite controlling unwilling masses. Not only do the masses approve, they are willing to do more to preserve the "leveling out" of norwegian society to insure the rich don't get too rich and poor don't get too poor. In other words, they are fat and happy with the status quo in general.

 

 

I mean, when the participants in the survey were asked, did they actually consider the fact that when they opt for paying more; that if this was made into law, all of their fellow countrymen would also have to pay more? If not, then this case would not necessarily be much different from the charitable giving of Americans; though one would need the numbers in order to do a proper check.

 

This difference cuts to the heart of the different cultures. Norwegians want to pool their resources and force everyone to work together to fight social injustice. The degree of welfare support is so lavish relative to the american welfare system of bare subsistence that it is clear that egalitarianism is the goal, not just providing a few crumbs for the unfortunate.

 

It is true that americans are very generous and in fact give more per capita than almost all european states, but the difference is that the individual's right to retain their wealth supercedes the unfortunate circumstances of others in need. This is seen with disgust in most of europe, and is used as a political tool to show what might happen if european nations adopt american ideology.

 

What is not understood is that americans are very empathetic(extraordinary charitable giving) and want "equal opportunity" but not "equality". They think every individual should give generously but my neighbor should not tell me how to do it. It should be left up to the "individual".

 

This spills over into the different ideas of personal responsibility. Even poor people in america feel primary responsibility for their lot and many americans feel that rewarding irresponsible behavior encourages dependence. Giving to the poor in the wrong way can actually make them poorer.

 

In diverse cultures the collectivist welfare state rarely exists, in part because diverse groups don't like each other very much and also because not all have shared values or work ethics. One only need to look at the immigrant situation in scandinavia to see how this can play out.

[2ball_]

Erm, I agree on the disagreements to erm, agree on your statements ....

*grabs a pint* yup, that's about right .....

 

Just as a tip, "grabbing a pint" is very english and verly rarely american english. Since they were baseball metaphors, one would more likely grab a "brew", which unlike english football stadiums is sold openly from vendors walking up and down the stadium

 

Are you familiar with american baseball and understand the metaphors? Would you know how to throw a slider or screwball? They were used in WWII to clearly identify german spies, since they were unfamiliar with baseball lore.

 

And now... it is time for the 7th inning stretch. We all sing "Take me out to the ball game, take me out with the crowd...

 

Truly understand baseball and you pretty much understand americans.

 

I'm guessing he-like me- didn't understand a thing of it. This is "The English Pub". We like our pints here! And football! (soccer)

 

I wish I understood baseball, though. I also wish I understood cricket

 

Edit:

and curling, and hockey, and basketball, and chess, and boxing, and spelling

 

Endret 15. september 2011 av 2ball_