The World's Most Toxic Value System

[Robert_S]

I found it interesting.

The more I travel, study history and read the papers, the more convinced I become of the superiority of rationalism. With that attitude, I should spend all my time traveling to northern Europe and Japan. However, fate has also seen fit to send me to many places where people think with their viscera and gonads instead of their brains. The more I see it in action, the more convinced I become that societies that place personal "honor" before everything else are truly cursed. This value system has ramifications that pervade the societies infested with it. It is, in my view, the most toxic value system on the planet. The term toxic is carefully chosen and meant to be taken with the utmost literalness because societies pervaded by this value system are deeply poisoned spiritually.

Almost everybody will react to an attack on their honor, but in many societies people are expected to restrain their impulse to get revenge: to forgive or simply ignore insults, and most members of those societies succeed to a greater or lesser extent. But in societies dominated by the "honor" ethic, it's permissible, often demanded, to seek revenge. In many places, this cycle of revenge creates blood feuds that last for generations, or results in periodic flareups of mass violence or ethnic cleansing.

If there's a single attribute that defines the "honor" mentality, it's the notion that private killing over personal grievances is acceptable. But in addition to the most obvious manifestations of blood feud and vendetta, the "honor" mentality includes a constellation of other attributes. Most conspicuous is male domination, which often includes systematic degradation of women and extreme paranoia regarding female sexuality and possible infidelity.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/toxicval.htm

[amused]

Good stuff, thanks for the link.

[Atheist-Lite]

I think it's wrong to divide people up in this way. I find it odd coming from a nation obsessed with its flag and honour to call large swathes of the globe on that number? Whilst there are differences between cultures I don't think a simple categorization is possible. It appears to end with a classic example of American exceptionalism.

America's prosperity may be self-limiting. No American can say he or she earned all the technological blessings around us. People who put out an honest day's work can at least say they contribute their part, but the whole is vastly more than the sum of its parts. A few thousand computer scientists have completely transformed American society, and indeed the whole world. We see people who don't want to pay taxes for education demanding the most advanced health care for themselves. If the reward system for contributing to technology erodes sufficiently and the sense of entitlement becomes arrogant enough, America's ascent may stall.

[hadespussercats]

I think it's wrong to divide people up in this way. I find it odd coming from a nation obsessed with its flag and honour to call large swathes of the globe on that number? Whilst there are differences between cultures I don't think a simple categorization is possible. It appears to end with a classic example of American exceptionalism.

America's prosperity may be self-limiting. No American can say he or she earned all the technological blessings around us. People who put out an honest day's work can at least say they contribute their part, but the whole is vastly more than the sum of its parts. A few thousand computer scientists have completely transformed American society, and indeed the whole world. We see people who don't want to pay taxes for education demanding the most advanced health care for themselves. If the reward system for contributing to technology erodes sufficiently and the sense of entitlement becomes arrogant enough, America's ascent may stall.

See, it's not coming from a nation-- it's coming from an individual with his own perspectives, who happens to live in a nation that is sometimes typified by the behavior you describe.

Seems to me someone who lives in a country prone to nationalism and arrogance is particularly wise to point out the dangers of "honor" morality.

And our legal system does not in fact support stoning of adulterous women, or turning a blind eye to vengeance killings-- but there are nations in the world that do.

Also, as a by-the-by, America's ascent has already stalled.

[Santa_Claus]

Interesting article. but kinda misses the point.

Was it written by an American?

[Atheist-Lite]

Interesting article. but kinda misses the point.

Was it written by an American?

One from Wisconsin....the worst kind.

[Robert_S]

Interesting article. but kinda misses the point.

Was it written by an American?

One from Wisconsin....the worst kind.

What would the point be?

I think it's wrong to divide people up in this way. I find it odd coming from a nation obsessed with its flag and honour to call large swathes of the globe on that number? Whilst there are differences between cultures I don't think a simple categorization is possible. It appears to end with a classic example of American exceptionalism.

America's prosperity may be self-limiting. No American can say he or she earned all the technological blessings around us. People who put out an honest day's work can at least say they contribute their part, but the whole is vastly more than the sum of its parts. A few thousand computer scientists have completely transformed American society, and indeed the whole world. We see people who don't want to pay taxes for education demanding the most advanced health care for themselves. If the reward system for contributing to technology erodes sufficiently and the sense of entitlement becomes arrogant enough, America's ascent may stall.

I read that bit to mean that if Merka is going to stay on top, then Merkins need to drop the sense that they are somehow better just by being Merkins.

[Atheist-Lite]

Interesting article. but kinda misses the point.

Was it written by an American?

One from Wisconsin....the worst kind.

What would the point be?

I think it's wrong to divide people up in this way. I find it odd coming from a nation obsessed with its flag and honour to call large swathes of the globe on that number? Whilst there are differences between cultures I don't think a simple categorization is possible. It appears to end with a classic example of American exceptionalism.

America's prosperity may be self-limiting. No American can say he or she earned all the technological blessings around us. People who put out an honest day's work can at least say they contribute their part, but the whole is vastly more than the sum of its parts. A few thousand computer scientists have completely transformed American society, and indeed the whole world. We see people who don't want to pay taxes for education demanding the most advanced health care for themselves. If the reward system for contributing to technology erodes sufficiently and the sense of entitlement becomes arrogant enough, America's ascent may stall.

I read that bit to mean that if Merka is going to stay on top, then Merkins need to drop the sense that they are somehow better just by being Merkins.

My question is one move advanced from there. Why does 'Merica need to stay on top? there's enough to go round all the way down the ladder in a society with no family loyaly and only loyalty to the corporation according to this guys thinking?

[FBM]

I don't see the ideal alluded to above as materializing until all concepts of national identity, and hence patriotism, are rendered null. And not just in the U.S. Along similar lines, racial and class identities would have to go. Whatever indoctrination that's based on a group-held us-them dichotomy will be closely followed by us vs them, ie, competition. I don't see it happening and am not convinced it should, to that extreme, anyway. If the extreme honor-first cultures persist in their behavior, they'll fail to develop the technological capacity to dominate. Self-determination.

From my point of view, any mentality that's based on an us-them dichotomy is simply lagging behind.

[Atheist-Lite]

I don't see the ideal alluded to above as materializing until all concepts of national identity, and hence patriotism, are rendered null. And not just in the U.S. Along similar lines, racial and class identities would have to go. Whatever indoctrination that's based on a group-held us-them dichotomy will be closely followed by us vs them, ie, competition. I don't see it happening and am not convinced it should, to that extreme, anyway. If the extreme honor-first cultures persist in their behavior, they'll fail to develop the technological capacity to dominate. Self-determination.

From my point of view, any mentality that's based on an us-them dichotomy is simply lagging behind.

Your wrong. Technology doesn't require a 'good all for the best in the best of all worlds, inclusive' culture. The nazis and their scientific advances showed how 'evil thar cultural traits' are fully independant of technological progress. I think New Scientist did a interesting article about that some years ago but because they've become a gated publication so I can't bring it online here.

[MrJonno]

This reminds me of quite an intelligent guy, former ambassador from Pakistan talking about religion and blasphemy. He had spent a lot of time in the west, lots of degrees in international relations but really didnt understand the west from his statement about blasphemy. It was along the lines of 'if someone said something terrible about your wife you would want to hit them, thats how we feel about Mohammed and why people should not insult him'. What he doesnt understand is no court in the west would consider it a justification to initiate violence because someone said something nasty about your wife. And to be honest if my wife expected me to hit someone just because they had been insulted I would give serious consideration to leaving my wife.

I don't think this honor sytem is necessarily just 'eastern', its also part of western criminal gang behaviour

[Atheist-Lite]

This reminds me of quite an intelligent guy, former ambassador from Pakistan talking about religion and blasphemy. He had spent a lot of time in the west, lots of degrees in international relations but really didnt understand the west from his statement about blasphemy. It was along the lines of 'if someone said something terrible about your wife you would want to hit them, thats how we feel about Mohammed and why people should not insult him'. What he doesnt understand is no court in the west would consider it a justification to initiate violence because someone said something nasty about your wife. And to be honest if my wife expected me to hit someone just because they had been insulted I would give serious consideration to leaving my wife.

I don't think this honor sytem is necessarily just 'eastern', its also part of western criminal gang behaviour

I think scarcity is key. Like Bonobos and Chimps....they share a common heritage but on one side of the Congo river theres plenty of bananas or whatever Bonobos eat and all they do is shag in a free love way. There's a big difference with the larger, more aggressive chimps on the other side of the river who raid and hunt and scheme and thart around....the big difference is a scarcity of food....scarcity brings out the chimp traits of aggression, grasping and bigging it big.....surplus does the opposite.

[FBM]

I don't see the ideal alluded to above as materializing until all concepts of national identity, and hence patriotism, are rendered null. And not just in the U.S. Along similar lines, racial and class identities would have to go. Whatever indoctrination that's based on a group-held us-them dichotomy will be closely followed by us vs them, ie, competition. I don't see it happening and am not convinced it should, to that extreme, anyway. If the extreme honor-first cultures persist in their behavior, they'll fail to develop the technological capacity to dominate. Self-determination.

From my point of view, any mentality that's based on an us-them dichotomy is simply lagging behind.

Your wrong. Technology doesn't require a 'good all for the best in the best of all worlds, inclusive' culture. The nazis and their scientific advances showed how 'evil thar cultural traits' are fully independant of technological progress. I think New Scientist did a interesting article about that some years ago but because they've become a gated publication so I can't bring it online here.

What happened to the Nazi Party?

I didn't mean to imply that separatist, nationalist organizations can NEVER develop technologies, only that they're unlikely to prevail on a global scale due to the limitations inherent in their underlying philosophy. Unlikely, note. Not saying it's impossible, just that my understanding of history gives me the impression that it's unlikely.

[MrJonno]

I think scarcity is key. Like Bonobos and Chimps....they share a common heritage but on one side of the Congo river theres plenty of bananas or whatever Bonobos eat and all they do is shag in a free love way. There's a big difference with the larger, more aggressive chimps on the other side of the river who raid and hunt and scheme and thart around....the big difference is a scarcity of food....scarcity brings out the chimp traits of aggression, grasping and bigging it big.....surplus does the opposite.

The use of violence over resources can be quite logical, I want more and can get it with low risk whack. However violence over honour is a bit more complex. I'm sure biologically it may make the male more attractive to women if they avenge insults through in modern (western?) society probably not cost effective. Wife gets insulted, man hits insulter. Wife thinks partner is a real man, man goes to jail, women finds someone else

[Robert_S]

Interesting article. but kinda misses the point.

Was it written by an American?

One from Wisconsin....the worst kind.

What would the point be?

I think it's wrong to divide people up in this way. I find it odd coming from a nation obsessed with its flag and honour to call large swathes of the globe on that number? Whilst there are differences between cultures I don't think a simple categorization is possible. It appears to end with a classic example of American exceptionalism.

America's prosperity may be self-limiting. No American can say he or she earned all the technological blessings around us. People who put out an honest day's work can at least say they contribute their part, but the whole is vastly more than the sum of its parts. A few thousand computer scientists have completely transformed American society, and indeed the whole world. We see people who don't want to pay taxes for education demanding the most advanced health care for themselves. If the reward system for contributing to technology erodes sufficiently and the sense of entitlement becomes arrogant enough, America's ascent may stall.

I read that bit to mean that if Merka is going to stay on top, then Merkins need to drop the sense that they are somehow better just by being Merkins.

My question is one move advanced from there. Why does 'Merica need to stay on top? there's enough to go round all the way down the ladder in a society with no family loyaly and only loyalty to the corporation according to this guys thinking?

I think it is rather nice that I get go out and protest about what my military might be doing elsewhere as opposed to what is being done to me by some other fellow's military.

I don't think this guy's anti-family, but there does seem to be a correlation between a tight knit extended family and the Thar culture he's talking about.