Ye Olde Pub (The English Pub)

[Slimda]

If a sport requires a whole bunch of rules, it's a bad sport.

[jjkoggan]

If a sport requires a whole bunch of rules, it's a bad sport.

Because it takes longer to learn?

[Slimda]

No, not at all. A whole bunch of rules forces one to concentrate less about the actual sport, and more about staying within the rules. For example, look at the current affairs of football. Players in the top levels are frequently faking their injuries to penalize their opponents, and they need a whole bunch of judges just to keep track of all the rules are being followed.

[jjkoggan]

No, not at all. A whole bunch of rules forces one to concentrate less about the actual sport, and more about staying within the rules. For example, look at the current affairs of football. Players in the top levels are frequently faking their injuries to penalize their opponents, and they need a whole bunch of judges just to keep track of all the rules are being followed.

 

Yes faking injury is the most common complaint americans have about football. They feel it makes football a sissy (feminine) sport since this type of thing is extremely rare in the more popular american sports. The other complaint is that there is lots of running around but not much action due to the low scoring.

Personally I am a football fan. I follow the US National team that won their group in dramatic fashion at the last World Cup over England and my local team, the Columbus Crew. I used to follow LSK at AAraasen.

 

What are your favorite sports?

[Slimda]

I don't have any favorite sports that I watch. But I do love a good game of 2-on-2 Volleyball. It has to be my favorite sport. And it's super easy to get into.

[jjkoggan]

I don't have any favorite sports that I watch. But I do love a good game of 2-on-2 Volleyball. It has to be my favorite sport. And it's super easy to get into.

 

 

I know several norwegians who like volleyball too.

 

One sport I never completely understood was team handball. Why is it popular in Norway and why is it not so popular elsewhere? I don't know anybody here who even know it exists. Just curious how it developed in Norway.

 

On a side note, I have the option of traveling to Norway either late October or late March due to business trips I must take to europe. Which time would you choose? I have some friends to visit, but not much time to do much else.

[Slimda]

Well, late october tends to be either snowy, windy, wet or all three combined. Late March will usually be filled with wet snow, a cold sun and people going "I can't wait for this snow to melt!".

 

Since I stay inside most of my time, I have no large preference. Autumn and Spring are cold enough to let me sleep comfortably in bed, and not sweating like a pig in an oven.

 

Team Handball? I don't know why it's popular either, I find it boring. There are a lot of things with Norway I don't understand either, but I guess that's just me going "oh, humanity..."

[Cazzo Grande]

I think you ought to go in March. Norway is pretty much a shitty country in terms of weather but I personally find March a "happier" month, in the sense that I go around waiting for the snow to melt, whereas I in October go around hoping for the snow to never show up.

[jjkoggan]

I think you ought to go in March. Norway is pretty much a shitty country in terms of weather but I personally find March a "happier" month, in the sense that I go around waiting for the snow to melt, whereas I in October go around hoping for the snow to never show up.

In many ways winters are worse where I live compared to Oslo . Not much snow but lots of ice on roads, often raining during the day and freezing at nightjust in time for the morning commute. I used to live along the Canadian border and enjoyed winter sports like langren, something not possible here where the 2nd largest octoberfest in the world is held.

[Cazzo Grande]

Well I believe Oslo is a pretty nice place when it comes to snow, at least with regards to the more populated central areas. The snow melts pretty fast and there isn't much ice.

[Anarkhos]

 

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.

 

No, it's about more about equal opportunity than equality - as I've given plenty of examples on already. It's about helping the unfortunate, not robbing the rich.

 

I don't think I have much more to add than that, seeing that this debate is not particularly productive at the moment.

 

I'd rather add a comment on your trip; my personal preference would be October since then there might still be trees with leaves left on them... March gives a more dead experience; no grass, no leaves - nature's dead.

[Getingar]

Snow is great! :tease:You can ski and it looksmuch beatufull than the summer does.

Also the temperature is bettr you can always decide to become hottr with a fireplace or hotter clotches but in the summer you can't get colder.

[jjkoggan]

THis is the expert academic consensus on egalitarian norwegian culture. The academics who disagree with this consensus are rare and I invite anyone to educate me on what they are missing.

 

 

 

 

Egalitarian individualism

 

Most of those writing on Norwegian national identity seem to agree that politics in the country is marked by a peculiar democratic ideology, which we may tentatively label egalitarian individualism. Equality and the integrity of the individual are in other words believed to be highly valued. Historical and geographic reasons for such an ideology are often evoked - for example, Norwegian farms were scattered and did not invite the communal form of organisation more common in other parts of Europe, and the country lacked a strong aristocracy and related hierarchies - but we shall not go into such arguments here.

 

The ideology of egalitarian individualism, it has been argued, expresses itself through a strong suspicion against social climbers and rejection of formal social hierarchies. In political rhetoric, equality is a positively valued word, whether it concerns gender, class or town and country. Few politicians would venture to say that they were all for inequality. The social democratic ideology which has guided post-war Norwegian politics expresses such values, which are embedded in the concept of the Welfare State (cf. Andersen, 1984). The author Aksel Sandemose, an immigrant from Denmark, coined the Law of Jante (Janteloven, cf. Sandemose, 1953), which presents such an egalitarianism in a less charitable manner. The Law of Jante proclaims - in a variety of ways - that "Thou Shalt Not Think Highly of Thyself". It expresses, in other words, an ideology of equality which depreciates the original and the unusual. It is widely held that the Law of Jante is a deeply embedded aspect of Norwegian culture, and that it discourages brilliance and high achievements. Indeed, the Law of Jante has repeatedly been mentioned by local businessmen as an obstacle to economic growth and prosperity. (It is true that Norway contains fewer very rich people and thus has a greater measure of economic equality than most other countries, but it is not true that the country has had an unusually low economic growth rate.)

 

Be this as it may; the idea of Norwegian egalitarianism has inspired, and continues to justify, legal provisions for equality between the genders, a progressive system of taxation and a highly subsidised rural sector. Egalitarian individualism is also frequently mentioned as a driving force behind the strong resistance to EC membership, which reached a temporary peak in the 1972 referendum when 52.5% of the population voted against membership. The idea of decentralisation, a related aspect of this ideology, will be discussed below.

Endret 20. september 2011 av jjkoggan

[Anarkhos]

To be honest, I don't trust these people. I have no idea who they are, or why I should take them seriously.

 

The only thing I can say for certain is that they do at times appear dangerously at odds with reality, sometimes making pretty absurd claims (either directly or indirectly); such as the anecdote about a boy and his destroyed bike (that one was particularly crazy).

Endret 24. september 2011 av Anarkhos

[jjkoggan]

To be honest, I don't trust these people. I have no idea who they are, or why I should take them seriously.

 

The only thing I can say for certain is that they do at times appear dangerously at odds with reality, sometimes making pretty absurd claims (either directly or indirectly); such as the anecdote about a boy and his destroyed bike (that one was particularly crazy).

 

 

Do you reject all academic research in general? Academic researchers try to back up their assertions by objective data instead of just their personal observations. My view is that my personal observations are limited and I neither have the time or money to conduct the objective surveys necessary to back up my ideas on cultural norms. This does not mean that one researcher is always right but when a consensus amongst researchers is reached it becomes difficult to dispute without substantial conflicting objective data. Not all believe in anthropogenic global warming but unless you are a climatologist, you do not have the expertise or access to the data to dispute their claims. It doesn't mean that the consensus is absolutely correct though, only that the probablility of us non-climatologists being correct is very low.

 

THe interesting thing is that when it comes to sociolological and psychological research we are all experts, or at least we think we are since we observe society and behavior every day. I think we need to be careful, though to think that we are equally informed as those who spend their life combing over objective data. I am not suggesting that we should not constantly challenge expert opinion, only to realize that we ourselves are likely more ignorant than they are.

[Anarkhos]

To be honest, I don't trust these people. I have no idea who they are, or why I should take them seriously.

 

The only thing I can say for certain is that they do at times appear dangerously at odds with reality, sometimes making pretty absurd claims (either directly or indirectly); such as the anecdote about a boy and his destroyed bike (that one was particularly crazy).

 

 

Do you reject all academic research in general? Academic researchers try to back up their assertions by objective data instead of just their personal observations. My view is that my personal observations are limited and I neither have the time or money to conduct the objective surveys necessary to back up my ideas on cultural norms. This does not mean that one researcher is always right but when a consensus amongst researchers is reached it becomes difficult to dispute without substantial conflicting objective data. Not all believe in anthropogenic global warming but unless you are a climatologist, you do not have the expertise or access to the data to dispute their claims. It doesn't mean that the consensus is absolutely correct though, only that the probablility of us non-climatologists being correct is very low.

 

THe interesting thing is that when it comes to sociolological and psychological research we are all experts, or at least we think we are since we observe society and behavior every day. I think we need to be careful, though to think that we are equally informed as those who spend their life combing over objective data. I am not suggesting that we should not constantly challenge expert opinion, only to realize that we ourselves are likely more ignorant than they are.

 

It is not enough to be highly regarded in a scientific field, because the field itself may not be highly regarded.

 

There are some fields where the public may easily be convinced; such as large parts of physics. We know a lot about gravity, scientists can predict solar and lunar eclipses. Both are powerful evidence of how well the relevant scientists master their particular field. They can also manage to send space probes far away and get the timing right, because of their understanding of physics is so adequate for the purpose. And so we get pictures back acting as yet more powerful evidence.

 

When it comes to the academics that you quote above, I am not aware of anything convincing that their field, whatever it may be, has figured out. When I then, in addition, see one-sided texts where the authors are seemingly hellbent on finding things that support the notion of Jante Law - rather than debating the topic in an open manner, then this reminds me more of conspiracy theories than science.

 

I also often find conclusions that are either at odds with what I have been taught, what I have myself personally experienced and sometimes even both. One example is the following, to quote your latest text:

 

Egalitarian individualism is also frequently mentioned as a driving force behind the strong resistance to EC membership, which reached a temporary peak in the 1972 referendum when 52.5% of the population voted against membership.

 

one of the things that I have heard when it comes to the EU, is that the opposition to it comes a particular form of nationalism in Norway, one that has to do with the history of the independence of the country. Unlike Sweden and Denmark, both members of the EU, Norway cannot trace its history as an indepent country back to the Viking age. In fact, Norway became a fully indepent country as late as 1905. Before that, you would have to go back to either 1397 or 1536 (depending on interpretation) before Norway again exists as an independent nation.

 

The centuries of dependence have then supposedly given a greater resistance to 'giving up sovereignty' than what you will find in the rest of Scandinavia.

 

Now, that's one theory; but the texts that you quote do not appear to any large extent to be interested in anything that has nothing to with 'Jante Law' (and what this does to nuance and an understanding of the larger picture should be obvious). The term 'egalitarian individualism' is another amusing example (no, I do not see the great need to put 'egalitarian' in there).

 

That said, I feel the last article of yours was the best one so far, and it did even manage to point out that individualism is strong in Norway; even if it felt the need to 'downgrade' it.

Endret 25. september 2011 av Anarkhos

[Anarkhos]

double

Endret 25. september 2011 av Anarkhos

[jjkoggan]

It is not enough to be highly regarded in a scientific field, because the field itself may not be highly regarded.

 

There are some fields where the public may easily be convinced; such as large parts of physics. We know a lot about gravity, scientists can predict solar and lunar eclipses. Both are powerful evidence of how well the relevant scientists master their particular field. They can also manage to send space probes far away and get the timing right, because of their understanding of physics is so adequate for the purpose. And so we get pictures back acting as yet more powerful evidence.

 

When it comes to the academics that you quote above, I am not aware of anything convincing that their field, whatever it may be, has figured out. When I then, in addition, see one-sided texts where the authors are seemingly hellbent on finding things that support the notion of Jante Law - rather than debating the topic in an open manner, then this reminds me more of conspiracy theories than science.

 

Sociology is, of course an inexact science because societies are by nature complex and are influenced by many different factors. One cannot isolate a society or human being and test different hypotheses as one can do in physics. That said, the contributions of sociologists have been indispensable and are hugely influential in the well ordered societies you and I live in. Public and private policies on health, crime, politics, education and much more would not be as successful as they are today in the western world without sociological studies to guide us.

 

I also often find conclusions that are either at odds with what I have been taught, what I have myself personally experienced and sometimes even both. One example is the following, to quote your latest text:

 

Egalitarian individualism is also frequently mentioned as a driving force behind the strong resistance to EC membership, which reached a temporary peak in the 1972 referendum when 52.5% of the population voted against membership.

 

one of the things that I have heard when it comes to the EU, is that the opposition to it comes a particular form of nationalism in Norway, one that has to do with the history of the independence of the country. Unlike Sweden and Denmark, both members of the EU, Norway cannot trace its history as an indepent country back to the Viking age. In fact, Norway became a fully indepent country as late as 1905. Before that, you would have to go back to either 1397 or 1536 (depending on interpretation) before Norway again exists as an independent nation.

 

The centuries of dependence have then supposedly given a greater resistance to 'giving up sovereignty' than what you will find in the rest of Scandinavia.

 

The paper states that it was "mentioned as a driving force", meaning it was a significant factor, not that it was the only reason. Also, the theory that you present fits quite nicely into the concept of egalitarian individualism. The desire to remain independent (individualism) and not dominated by others (egalitarianism) is a perfect example of egalitarian individualism.

 

 

Now, that's one theory; but the texts that you quote do not appear to any large extent to be interested in anything that has nothing to with 'Jante Law' (and what this does to nuance and an understanding of the larger picture should be obvious). The term 'egalitarian individualism' is another amusing example (no, I do not see the great need to put 'egalitarian' in there).

 

Again, the article does not purport to have all the answers, nor does it attempt to explain all, it only presents jante law as a possible explanation. This is not an academic study paper presenting objective evidence, but rather an opinion paper using other references and logical arguments as support.

[Anarkhos]

I also often find conclusions that are either at odds with what I have been taught, what I have myself personally experienced and sometimes even both. One example is the following, to quote your latest text:

 

Egalitarian individualism is also frequently mentioned as a driving force behind the strong resistance to EC membership, which reached a temporary peak in the 1972 referendum when 52.5% of the population voted against membership.

 

one of the things that I have heard when it comes to the EU, is that the opposition to it comes a particular form of nationalism in Norway, one that has to do with the history of the independence of the country. Unlike Sweden and Denmark, both members of the EU, Norway cannot trace its history as an indepent country back to the Viking age. In fact, Norway became a fully indepent country as late as 1905. Before that, you would have to go back to either 1397 or 1536 (depending on interpretation) before Norway again exists as an independent nation.

 

The centuries of dependence have then supposedly given a greater resistance to 'giving up sovereignty' than what you will find in the rest of Scandinavia.

 

The paper states that it was "mentioned as a driving force", meaning it was a significant factor, not that it was the only reason. Also, the theory that you present fits quite nicely into the concept of egalitarian individualism. The desire to remain independent (individualism) and not dominated by others (egalitarianism) is a perfect example of egalitarian individualism.

 

That theory says that it is not a trait ingrained in the culture, it is rather a reflex reaction to past history. In Norwegian, the word 'union' can make people think of the union with e.g. Denmark, which means relationship between countries where one country controls pretty much everything, and the other one nothing (the union with Sweden that followed was somewhat milder, IIRC). The European Union suddenly sounds like a more scary concept with this background.

 

On the countryside, there were people who owned land, and people who had to rent their land from the landowners. The people who owned land were the wealthy and mighty people on the countryside.

 

In the cities, there were also wealthy and influential people; and poor people and people who had next to nothing to say.

 

In short, if the Norwegian society today is an egalitarian one, then that is a modern thing. Throughout history, Norwegian society has not been egalitarian, far from it.

 

 

Now, that's one theory; but the texts that you quote do not appear to any large extent to be interested in anything that has nothing to with 'Jante Law' (and what this does to nuance and an understanding of the larger picture should be obvious). The term 'egalitarian individualism' is another amusing example (no, I do not see the great need to put 'egalitarian' in there).

 

Again, the article does not purport to have all the answers, nor does it attempt to explain all, it only presents jante law as a possible explanation. This is not an academic study paper presenting objective evidence, but rather an opinion paper using other references and logical arguments as support.

 

The objective evidence is the interesting part, such that their conclusions can be scrutinised. Since it is not an exact science, all the more important is transparency.

[jjkoggan]

That theory says that it is not a trait ingrained in the culture, it is rather a reflex reaction to past history. In Norwegian, the word 'union' can make people think of the union with e.g. Denmark, which means relationship between countries where one country controls pretty much everything, and the other one nothing (the union with Sweden that followed was somewhat milder, IIRC). The European Union suddenly sounds like a more scary concept with this background.

 

Collective experience is what shapes culture. If past experience creates a "reflex reaction" to being dominated by others then the reaction becomes ingrained into the culture. Much of today's culture in Europe was shaped by two world wars. All cultures evolve in this way.

 

On the countryside, there were people who owned land, and people who had to rent their land from the landowners. The people who owned land were the wealthy and mighty people on the countryside.

 

In the cities, there were also wealthy and influential people; and poor people and people who had next to nothing to say.

 

In short, if the Norwegian society today is an egalitarian one, then that is a modern thing. Throughout history, Norwegian society has not been egalitarian, far from it.

 

Relative to many of your european brethren, Norway was not dominated by powerful aristocracies, and was more decentralized, therefore more egalitarian (in relative terms).