individualism-collectivism

in Individualism-Collectivism and Social Capital (2004) [pdf], allik & realo — after looking at some, you know, actual data — come to the same conclusion that i have been babbling on about here on the blog (if you can read between the lines/read my mind, that is), and that is that paradoxically it appears that, in societies in which the members are MORE individualistic, those same members are oriented MORE towards the group, the whole group, and nothing but the group (i.e. NOT their extended families or clans or tribes) than in societies in which the members are NOT so individualistic.

this seems paradoxical, because you would think that the more individualistic a bunch of individuals were, the more selfish and self-oriented they’d become; but what in fact seems to have happened out there in The Big World is that those individualistic individuals are more concerned about the commonweal than non-individualistic peoples are — the individualistic individuals are, in fact, more civic minded, more democratically minded, and NOT very family minded (in the sense of the extended family, that is).

oddly, the whole world is not like this, only some peoples are. as riley jones said on twitter the other day, it’s almost like people evolved…to be different!

from allik & realo [pg. 32]:

“[I]ndividualism does not necessarily jeopardize organic unity and social solidarity. On the contrary, the growth of individuality, autonomy, and self-sufficiency may be perceived as necessary conditions for the development of interpersonal cooperation, mutual dependence, and social solidarity…. Psychologists have also noticed that the consequences of individualism are not always detrimental. For instance, it has been noticed that individualism (as it is conceptualized in psychology) is also associated with higher self-esteem and optimism (Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto,&Norasakkunkit, 1997); individualistic cultures are higher on subjective wellbeing (Diener & Diener, 1995; Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995; Diener & Suh, 1999; Suh, Diener, Oishi,&Triandis, 1998), and they report higher levels of quality-of-life (Veenhoven, 1999). People in individualistic cultures tend to have more acquaintances and friends (Triandis, 2000); they are more extraverted and open to newexperience (McCrae, 2001); and they are more trusting and tolerant toward people of different races (Hofstede, 2001)….

“According to Hofstede’s (1991) definition, ‘individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family.’ Collectivism, on the other hand, ‘pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty’ (p. 51). Linking to theories of modernization, Hofstede (1991) claimed that industrialized, wealthy, and urbanized societies tend to become increasingly individualistic, whereas traditional, poorer, and rural societies tend to remain collectivistic….”

now’s the point where, if you haven’t read them before, have a look at these two previous posts of mine: mating patterns and the individual and where do clans come from?

back? ok!

here are the results from allik & realo. they took at look at the degrees of individualism both in different countries and in different u.s. states to see if there was any correlation between individualism and collectivism (measured by looking at social capital or interpersonal trust) in those places (see their paper for their methodology and where they got the data from — putnam was one of their sources). first, the countries (click on charts for LARGER views!):

allik and realo - nations

you’ll recognize all the usual, long-term outbreeding suspects** in the upper right-hand corner (most individualistic and most trusting): great britain, the anglo nations, and the netherlands in the lead; the scandinavians (a bit less individualistic than the brits/dutch) following; then the swiss, germans/other germanic populations, and the french and italians; then the eastern europeans; trailing way behind are groups like the turks, brazilians, and nigerians. the one big outlier is the chinese, and the authors, as well as other researchers to whom they refer, all admit that they have no idea why the chinese show up as so trusting — in other surveys, too, apparently. i can’t explain it, either — but, then, there are always exceptions that prove the rule. (~_^) (maybe.)

next, the u.s. states. it’s south dakota all over again!:

allik and realo - u.s. states

hackett fischer couldn’t have drawn a tidier chart of his four folkways! there are the yankees (and scandinavians) in the upper left-hand corner — the most individualistic with the most “social capital” a la putnam [pdf]. in other words, the longest outbreeders again. in the lower right-hand corner are the backcountry southerners who stem from populations that inbred for longer (i.e. the scots-irish and border reivers**). they all have the lowest amounts of individualism and social capital (although, paradoxically again, they probably feel like strong individualists, but that’s just antipathy towards government, i.e. outsiders having any control over their lives — i know the feeling! (~_^) ). and states with a mix of outbreeders and inbreeders — like new york and illinois — fall in between.

more from allik & realo [pgs. 44-45]:

“Where Does Social Capital Come From?

“A mere correlation (no matter how high it is) between measures of social capital and individualism tells us nothing of course about their causal linkage. What we can conclude is that individualistic values appear to be conducive to social capital and social capital appears to be conducive to individualism (see also Inkeles, 2000)…. As noted in our introduction, individualism can be seen as a consequence of modernization. Modern, rational societies are built on the self interest of individual actors whose independence and inalienable individual rights form the core of their political and economical life. Many social scientists have predicted that one inevitable consequence of modernization is the unlimited growth of individualism, which poses serious threats to the organic unity of individuals and society by paving a road to social atomization, unbounded egoism, and distrust (Etzioni, 1993, 1996; Lane, 1994). Existing data, however, provide no support for such pessimistic prognoses. On the contrary, we saw that individualism appears to be rather firmly associated with an increase of social capital, both within and across cultures. Paradoxically, in societies where individuals are more autonomous and seemingly liberated from social bonds, the same individuals are also more inclined to form voluntary associations and to trust each other and to have a certain kind of public spirit…. Thus, the autonomy and independence of the individual may be perceived as the prerequisites for establishing voluntary associations, trusting relationships, and mutual cooperation with one another.”

i think that the social scientists have it exactly backwards: individualism is not a consequence of modernization, but rather modernization is a consequence of individualism. and this individualism first got going in the early medieval period (although its roots may go even further back — see here and here) in the northwest corner of europe (barring ireland and the highlands of scotland) with the outbreeding program put into place by the catholic church and tptb.**

the english were some of the earliest individualists (see here and here and here), and they pretty much invented the industrial revolution and neat things like liberal democracy. oh, and they were also the first in europe to cease being so crazy violent in the medieval period.

peoples are individualistic because they have certain innate traits that were selected for via evolution, and one way (i think) to set up the conditions for those traits to be selected for is to avoid close mating, i.e. get rid of clannishness. over the long-term — we’re talking evolutionary processes here, not overnight quick fixes. the process started in northern europe in the early medieval period (or perhaps even a bit earlier), and after a thousand years or so, these societies were filled with individualistic individuals having a strong orientation towards the wider group, i.e. societies with a lot of trust and a lot of social capital. that’s the recipe for individualism-collectivism.
_____

**for more on the historic mating patterns of various european (and other) populations, see the “mating patterns in…” series below (↓) in the left-hand column.

previously: me and max and mating patterns and the individual and where do clans come from? and corporations and collectivities and liberal democracy vs. consensus building and mating patterns, family types, social structures, and selection pressures

(note: comments do not require an email. individualist.)

Advertisements

29 Comments

  1. Their interpersonal trust measure they use in in their correlation between individualism-collectivism is interesting.

    IIRC Inductivist used it as well and some of the results were a bit suprising –

    http://inductivist.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Trust

    Percent who say you can trust people

    “Iran 65.3, Saudi Arabia 53.0, China 55.2, Indonesia 51.6, Iraq 47.6, Japan 42.9, Vietnam 41.1, Taiwan 38.2, Egypt 37.9, India 37.9, Mexico 28.9, Pakistan 27.9, Dominican Republic 26.4, Morocco 23.5, Chile 22.5, Nigeria 22.1, Argentina 20.3, South Africa 19.1, Venezuela 14.8, Turkey 12.6, Zimbabwe 11.9, Algeria 11.2”

    It’s surprising that a lot of the Northwest African Arabic countries are amongst the lowest trust, whereas the Arabic countries along Northeast Africa, West Asia and the Arabian Peninsula were pretty high trust, often more than the typical European country. I don’t have much experience with Iranians, but apparently that matches perceptions of their personalities.

    Reply

  2. Good bit of confirmation.

    .
    “i think that the social scientists have it exactly backwards: individualism is not a consequence of modernization, but rather modernization is a consequence of individualism.”

    I think that’s right. Kin-gravity *prevents* the creation of larger scale social networks and that was the first step initially.

    However I also think both are true i.e. *initially* it got started the way you have described and that led (imo) to the industrial revolution and urbanization model in NW Europe but as that industrial *model* was exported to non-individualist populations the people in those countries who moved from the country to the cities because of the model began the individualization process simply through people from different villages moving to the city and getting married. They didn’t adopt the individualist marriage model deliberately it was simply a side-effect of the internal migration to the cities. This would be true everywhere except places where the original clan-based marriage form continued through long distance arranged marriage.

    If so you’d get three basic variations

    1) NW Europe

    collectivist population
    – individualist marriage model
    — culture based evolution
    — individualist population
    —- industrialization model

    followed by

    2) Imported industrial model

    collectivist population
    – imported industrialization model
    — individualist marriage model in the cities
    — urban cultural evolution
    —- urban individualist vs rural collectivist population

    or

    3) ?

    collective population
    – imported industrialization model
    — clan-based marriage maintained even in the cities
    — remain collectivist population

    The individualist creating process in the original variation has had a lot more time to work. In the exported model variation it’s more of a crash course.

    .
    I think you see the effects of variation (2) in many places – the riots in Turkey being a current example.

    If correct the positions of a lot of countries on various individualist vs collectivist graphs will both depend on the time they have been under the model and on their respective urban / rural splits and you might expect anomalies to result from testing only the urban or only the rural population.

    .
    “Many social scientists have predicted that one inevitable consequence of modernization is the unlimited growth of individualism, which poses serious threats to the organic unity of individuals and society by paving a road to social atomization, unbounded egoism, and distrust (Etzioni, 1993, 1996; Lane, 1994). Existing data, however, provide no support for such pessimistic prognoses. On the contrary, we saw that individualism appears to be rather firmly associated with an increase of social capital”

    Only if *everyone* is like that. If you import collectivist sub-populations into an individualist population it all breaks down.

    Reply

  3. Except in the extreme cases where you get libertarianism. But that is very much a minority position held by a few intellectual crazies is it not? More troubling is the behavior of those new “persons” in our societies known as private, joint-stock corporations. They have not sense of loyalty or commitment to any country or part of the world. I DO NOT BLAME THEM FOR THIS. They only play by the rules and do what they have to do to survive in a highly competitive international marketplace. IT’S THOSE WHO SET THE RULES WHO ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE. Do you know who they are?

    Reply

  4. It is interesting that China is an outlier – it has one of the highest levels of interpersonal trust, despite having the lowest level of individualism. It is much further from the curve than the other East Asian countries, South Korea and Japan.

    We could scratch our heads and ignore the data point, except for China’s very large population and its economic importance.

    We need to understand why China bucks the trend.

    Reply

  5. @james – “We need to understand why China bucks the trend.”

    absolutely! i agree. it’s just that, right now, i have no possible explanation for why their trust levels are so high. -?-

    they definitely seem to work very hard at it — building up trust that is. will have to learn more about the chinese (tall order!), not to mention think about it a lot more.

    if anybody has any ideas….

    (hmmmm. here is one thought: do you suppose they use their high iqs to compensate for the lack of trust that comes with a clannish society? do they try to think their way around their problem? and succeed to some extent? dunno. just thinking out loud.)

    Reply

  6. @matt – “Percent who say you can trust people”

    interesting! thanks. i wonder what year(s) the inductivist looked at — or if he just looked at them all. i’ll have to take a look one of these days.

    i dipped into the world values survey looking for trust data before and came up with this — not a lot of muslim countries showed up in the results, tho.

    i liked that the questions were broken out into:

    Could you tell me for each whether you trust people from this group completely, somewhat, not very much or not at all?
    – People you know personally
    – People you meet for the first time
    – People of another religion

    then you can see that there’s a difference in the chinese responses:

    – People you know personally = 81.80%
    – People you meet for the first time = 11.30%

    whereas, if you take the brits:

    – People you know personally = 96.70%
    – People you meet for the first time = 49.30%

    heh. the drop-off in trust is much greater for the chinese.

    @matt – “I don’t have much experience with Iranians, but apparently that matches perceptions of their personalities.”

    i’ve known quite a few persian iranians, and yes — they do seem like a rather civilized bunch. clannish, yes — but not the most clannish. and they totally want to be modern. i have the impression that most of the hard-core religious types in iran are from other ethnic groups, not so much the persians. (i could be wrong about that, tho.)

    Reply

  7. I don’t trust social science data out of China. Would you tell the truth when 25 mil had been killed by the govt in living memory?

    I would also note that the states you see as Scots-Irish and border reivers are also the most heavily black states: 20-35% That has to affect the data. I love DHF, but his numbers often skated past that. I blame Brandeis.

    For the rest, I agree with GW. A network of 50 weak positive connections is superior to a network of 1 strong one. But maintaining that 50 takes more intelligence, social understanding, and abstract moral values. It’s self-reinforcing.

    Reply

  8. @avi – “I don’t trust social science data out of China. Would you tell the truth when 25 mil had been killed by the govt in living memory?”

    houston, we’ve got a problem … if the people won’t honestly answer questions about trust because they don’t trust the people asking the questions about trust. (~_^) (note that their answers do vary according to the specific question — how much do you trust people you know vs. people you don’t know — so they’re not automatically answering “i trust everybody!” across the board.)

    @avi – “I would also note that the states you see as Scots-Irish and border reivers are also the most heavily black states: 20-35% That has to affect the data.”

    yeah, absolutely. still, it’s interesting that the nation data (the first chart) and the u.s. state data (the second) do seem to reinforce one another. for instance, ireland and northern ireland are much lower than great britain on individualism — although they do score as high, if not higher, than great britain on trust. but, then, there are a lot of minorities in great britain….

    oh, jeez. am i going to have to redo these charts making sure to take out minorities/immigrants? i guess i am. (honestly. do i have to do EVERYthing myself?! (~_^) )

    Reply

  9. @grey – “*initially* it got started the way you have described and that led (imo) to the industrial revolution and urbanization model in NW Europe but as that industrial *model* was exported to non-individualist populations the people in those countries who moved from the country to the cities because of the model began the individualization process simply through people from different villages moving to the city and getting married. They didn’t adopt the individualist marriage model deliberately it was simply a side-effect of the internal migration to the cities. This would be true everywhere except places where the original clan-based marriage form continued through long distance arranged marriage.”

    yeah, good points!

    the authors did make the point that some non-individualistic societies have made the jump to modernization, just that they (as you say) followed the lead of individualistic societies who invented modernization, as it were. they also point out that these other societies are “modern” in ways that are different from the original industrialist/modern societies (yeah, how could they not be, right?). (i thought about including those bits from their article in the post, but then i figured i couldn’t/shouldn’t reproduce the ENTIRE article here! (~_^) )

    they DON’T have, afaict, the subtle view that you have regarding how different non-individualistic societies may have developed differently post-modernization depending on how their mating patterns went (if they abandoned close marriage or not). THAT’S a really important point, i think. thanks! (^_^)

    Reply

  10. “paradoxically it appears that, in societies in which the members are MORE individualistic, those same members are oriented MORE towards the group, the whole group, and nothing but the group”

    *cough* Jews *cough*

    Reply

  11. @seratolva – “*cough* Jews *cough*”

    no, i think that jews — even european jews — are going to prove to be more clannish (and, therefore, particularistic) than individualistic (and, therefore, universalistic) (although western ashkenazi jews least clannish of all the jewish groups).

    when i said “group” there i mean the entire population — like the english are oriented towards the entire commonweal of england — even britain — h*ll, nowadays even europe or the entire world! they are not just focused on their own little subgroup(s).

    Reply

  12. Seratolva
    “*cough* Jews *cough*”

    I think Jews may turn out to be a bit of both. On the one hand – as far as i know anyway – they had the same pattern as Northern Euros, exogamous marriage within an endogamous limit, except the boundary was religion rather than geography but at the same time in a lot of cases they would have been in situations where a small group lived in a certain town or city for a long while and inter-married among that small group.

    So i wouldn’t be surprised if some followed the collectivist pattern and some the individualist one.

    Reply

  13. @james – “We need to understand why China bucks the trend.”

    It’s been clear for a while that if the basic idea is correct then the East Asians seemed to have figured out a different method from Europeans of getting to a similar place – in terms of effective large-scale co-operation.

    from hubchik
    “then you can see that there’s a difference in the chinese responses:

    – People you know personally = 81.80%
    – People you meet for the first time = 11.30%”

    I think the extreme drop-off in the numbers is indicative of something.

    One of the thoughts i had was if a society was so clannish it arranged itself such that the average person only rarely interacted with someone not part of their clan group then you might get a distorted response like the Chinese example.

    So that leads to the idea of a DIY clannishness without the actual familial clan – as an actual familial clan is by definition size-limiting as you can’t be *closely* related to enough people to run a corporation.

    hubchik
    “they definitely seem to work very hard at it — building up trust that is…do you suppose they use their high iqs to compensate for the lack of trust that comes with a clannish society?”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi

    Looking at it purely from the outside – you’d probably need to be Chinese to be sure – i think you may have hit it: artifical clans.

    (Japanese companies have a similar vibe too when you think about it: artificial clans again.)

    Reply

  14. The individual vs. collective issue is quite fascinating to me. Largely because I am an American living in Japan. It may seem counterintuitive, but I often find East Asians to be quite introverted and, frankly, selfish in their behavior. Very reduced concept or awareness of others or “Others”.
    Dr. Mahathir Mohamad (2008) made an interesting point that Asians generally do not have the Socratic command to “know thyself” built into their cultures as Westerners so there is actually a reduced perception of the self as a separate entity and by extension recued perception of the attitudes and feelings of others.
    Still, proof’s in the pudding and the East Asians generally are rather successful on many levels.
    Scratched my head for years in Japan on that one.

    Reply

  15. “i think that the social scientists have it exactly backwards: individualism is not a consequence of modernization, but rather modernization is a consequence of individualism.. and this individualism first got going in the early medieval period (although its roots may go even further back — see here and here) in the northwest corner of europe (barring ireland and the highlands of scotland) with the outbreeding program put into place by the catholic church and tptb.**”

    Sure, but even ancient Greece appears to have had lots of individualism.

    As for individualism, it could be added that this appears to self-regulate itself. Scandinavians – with the blessed Finns excepted – are very trusting and naive and allow for mass immigration which then eventually makes individualism and trust vanish. It seems there is a similar situation in America too.

    Reply

  16. “when i said “group” there i mean the entire population — like the english are oriented towards the entire commonweal of england — even britain — h*ll, nowadays even europe or the entire world! they are not just focused on their own little subgroup(s).”

    Maybe I need to clarify:
    *cough* Lefty commie Jews *cough*

    And ignore the orthodox. They just think they’re running things.

    Reply

  17. It may seem counterintuitive, but I often find East Asians to be quite introverted and, frankly, selfish in their behavior. Very reduced concept or awareness of others or “Others”.

    Dr. Mahathir Mohamad (2008) made an interesting point that Asians generally do not have the Socratic command to “know thyself” built into their cultures as Westerners so there is actually a reduced perception of the self as a separate entity and by extension recued perception of the attitudes and feelings of others.

    Don’t have any first hand experience with mass Asian society personally, but it’s interesting, as there are other pathways by which this could work as well – for instance,

    e.g. if you see yourself as part of a collective and willing to make certain sacrifices, then you might be more willing to push those on others. (and I find that plausible for why social conservatives, who are tend to be conscientious about self restraint to meet group norms, may tend to be less concerned with self expression and individual happiness)

    but the idea I like best is that individualistic societies are, rather than societies chiefly of people with rudimentry and perhaps slightly autistic (sorry, as this is probably not quite the right concept) societies, are societies where people have to “choose and be chosen” to fit into groups.

    and where it is “choose and be chosen” people are motivated to behave altruistically or at least mutualistically to others to be included in groups and reap the benefits of group membership. they can also form communities where other people with similar personality traits and interests can discuss ideas openly.

    of course, there is also the dark side of “choose and be chosen” which is about deception and manufacturing an image and being able to cast our members of the group who don’t agree with some particular groupthink.

    Also, a thought which strikes me is that individualism might be cognitively more complex than collectivism – individualism has a dynamic social environment where there are many more “agents” and where manufacturing and presenting a certain self image has a lot of importance (as opposed to a static environment with few agents).

    So there might be a parallel path to collectivism among world populations – some are collectivist because they generally have low cognitive resources, while others, the East Asians, are collectivist because although cognitive resources is high, it is more devoted to more cerebral matters.

    ….

    Also, hbdchick, another idea that’s kind of a tangent to this (and I bet you’ve addressed this before), but when it comes to inbreeding and trust, what do you think about a reverse causuality?

    I.e. people inbreed because they don’t trust strangers enough to enter into business and mutual protection relationships with them (which, plus kids, marriage effectively is in many societies), rather than that have low trust because they are inbred and so have evolved to want to boost their relatives fitness more (and dislike of strangers helps with this).

    What do you think would be a good test between these two ideas? I would think that in the former model (trust -> outbreeding), declines in violence which lower the consequences of betrayal and legal instruments to improve trust would tend to lead while in the latter model (outbreeding -> trust) legal instruments and declines in violence would lag (but I’m not too sure about this).

    Reply

  18. @Matt-
    Interesting thoughts there. I see as a matter of default settings. East Asians “officially” are collective in nature and part of that is the involuntary nature of much of their culture. Their default settings (in absence of official cultural values) seem quite selfish and myopic to me.

    Reply

  19. @grey – “On the one hand – as far as i know anyway – they had the same pattern as Northern Euros, exogamous marriage within an endogamous limit….”

    i think jews are going to prove, in general, to have had a greater amount of close marriages (cousin marriage, for instance) than the surrounding gentile populations — see here and here for instance. (plus the rather closed population.) plus, some european jews more than others: i’m betting that eastern european jews (like the hasidim) had a LOT more close marriages than western european jews — and sephardic jews, too.

    like i said before:

    “mitterauer drops a hint that medieval jews became concerned about inbreeding along with christians in europe….

    “my *guess* is that jews living in areas of europe where the cousin marriage bans were taken very seriously — france, germany, england (my “core europe”) — followed suit to some extent or another, while jews living in area of europe where the cousin marriage bans were not taken seriously — eastern europe, southern europe — did not. this may be why more open forms of judaism (reform judaism) originated in places like germany, whereas you get more closed forms (hasidism) in eastern europe.”

    so, the more outbreeding, western jews became comparatively less clannish (i.e. reform judaism), while eastern (and maybe sephardic) jews kept on being clannish.

    Reply

  20. My girlfriend is Chinese. Her parents were immigrants. Most of her high school friends are first generation. They won’t be forthcoming when you first meet them, but after enough time they’ll start to be candid. At one dinner, one of her friends was relating a story about how one Chinese family in their hometown screwed over another, and one girl turned to me (the only Anglo of six at the table) and said unprompted, “You can’t trust Chinese.” I laughed, thinking it a self-effacing joke, but everyone else at the table just shook their heads ruefully in tacit concurrence of the girl’s advice.

    Derbyshire explicitly labelled China a low-trust society in an article he wrote a few months back about Chinese drinking culture.

    I think China’s score in the above study should be interpreted with caution.

    Reply

  21. Staffan
    “Sure, but even ancient Greece appears to have had lots of individualism.”

    The Greeks – or the Athenians anyway – did something which may relate to the general theory

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleisthenes#Contributions

    “he changed the political organization from the four traditional tribes, which were based on family relations, into ten tribes according to their area of residence”

    Reply

  22. @staffan – “Sure, but even ancient Greece appears to have had lots of individualism.”

    not as much as we like to think, i think. ancient athenian society was very much built around extended families/clans.

    for instance cleisthenes, who greying wanderer mentions above, came from the powerful alcmaeonid family — and i’ll bet anyone $1.00 that cleisthenes was not just trying to be a nice guy with his reforms, but that the aim was to (at least in part) benefit his own family in some way — to keep them in power somehow. (call me cynical.) after all, with his reforms (iirc), he gave all sorts of lowly farmers outside of town the right to vote — they backed him then, of course — that had to have benefitted him and his clan in the ongoing power struggle with other athenian great families.** the alcmaeonidae certainly don’t seem to have disappeared after cleisthenes’ reforms came into play.

    see more at this previous post. (^_^)
    _____

    **gee. it’s just like … hmmmm … importing a bunch of different people into your country and giving them the right to vote just to keep yourself in power. now, where have i heard of that ploy before…?

    Reply

  23. @dpg – “I think China’s score in the above study should be interpreted with caution.”

    yeah, my general impression is that the chinese don’t trust each other. if you trust a bunch of foreigners (westerners, in this case) more than your own people to produce milk for your kids, you’ve got a problem:

    Milk Smugglers Top Heroin Courier Arrests in Hong Kong

    Foreign formula brands are treated as luxury goods because of distrust for the local supply chain, said Stuart Roper, a professor at Manchester Business School.

    ‘Baby milk scandals in China happened because of corruption, because regulation was very lax,’ Roper said. ‘Until things change in China, and they’re not going to change overnight, only then will the consumer be able to feel assured.’

    @dpg – “They won’t be forthcoming when you first meet them, but after enough time they’ll start to be candid.”

    i like hearing the truth about a people from the people themselves! i used to know this guy from venezuela, and he explained at one point how venezuelans (and he extended this to all latin americans) will just automatically lie first in answer to any question you might put to them, irregardless of whether they needed to lie about the answer or not (you know, to cover up for some reason). he reckoned it was just an automatic response sort-of thing. (~_^)

    Reply

  24. Interesting stuff! It would seem that blacks are something of a counterexample to this pattern. They are extremely individualistic but not particularly civic minded or law-abiding.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to DPG Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s