| | John in 4: Yes, you are right.
Luke in 3: No surprise there. At least you know yourself.
TSI in 2: "To see without looking" is a virtue because it helps 150 million people crowded on four small islands to have some sense of privacy. The "phenom" was your son's staring everyone else down, as if he were always spoiling for a fight. They were just nice enough to excuse him his impoliteness seeing as he was obviously a gai-jin. Smiling is also not universally understood to convey the same meaning as we accept. When an Asian smiles at you, it is because he's got you where he wants you. (Just as a generalization...)
See Luke in 2 above. We Objectivists denigrate "multiculturalism" because in the hands of university professors leads it to "anti-Americanism" and (no quotes needed) anti-capitalism and anti-individualism. But cultures do exist and people do live within them; and broadly, they all deliver some solutions to the same human problems.
See John in 4 above. John "gets" it because of his exposure to Greece, which is (not nearly so much as Japan) a "high context" culture where personal and family relationships are important.
If a meeting is called for 3:00 PM, what time should you show up? Different cultures have different answers. India maybe 3:45; Brazil 3:30; Germany 3:00 of course. Americans tend to show up early, to everyone else's surprise.
Steve in 1:
"As Objectivists, we are able to provide sound epistemological and ethical foundations for the civility, the respect, the productivity, the courage, the persistence, the honest recognition of reality and the choice to not let the extreme stresses, or the fears they generate, tempt them to step away from their principles. They are holding true to their beliefs in how a human should behave in hard times, instead of throwing them away when easy times disappear." I agree 100%. If you were stranded on an island with five people from RoR, with whom would you prefer that to be? See, you and I don't get along, but I evaluate you as someone who is dependable and reliable and - having boated about on your own - capable and cool headed. Other people here, maybe they, too are doctrinaire Objectivists, but I am not sure that this grows from within as opposed to being pasted on.
Ed in 0: I am surprised that you did not attribute it to Kantianism.
The thing with sumo is that we cheat, too; but we cheat to get ahead and they cheat to help the other guy stay up. They are not duplicitous, but you are prejudiced.
This came up on MSK's Objectivist Living. Having had two college classes in Japanese for Business before working for Kawasaki and Honda, I posted some comments, which I will not repeat here.
However, I will point to this paper on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Stress and Psychological Effects
Levin, B. H. and Schafer, J. A. (2007). "Stress and psychological effects". In Schafer, J. A. and Levin, B. H. (Eds.) Policing and Mass Casualty Events. Washington DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, pp. 128-140.
The authors of this article submit that the commonly held views of heroism and stress response are both inter-related and misplaced.
"Most might correctly guess that married people did far better than those not married. Some might correctly guess than males were much less vulnerable than females (or would at least be less likely to admit to such vulnerabilities in a self-report survey). However, few would correctly guess that unmarried couples did far worse than any other group (married, divorced, separated, widowed and never married). In fact, the “unmarried couple” category did worse than any other demographic group within the population. Some other variables operate as most might expect. For example, the rich did much better than the poor, and the educated did much better than the uneducated. Asians did far better than whites, African Americans, Hispanics, and other racial/ethnic groups. "
Find the whole paper here, starting at page 130
http://www.policefuturists.org/pdf/207.Vol3.Mass.Casualty.Events.final.21mr07.pdf
What I find most interesting is that even Objectivists accept that in times of "emergency" sharing resources is expected and preferred, whereas strictly individualized solutions, such as looting, are disvalued. Ayn Rand's essay on Lifeboat Ethics ("The Ethics of Emergencies") hinges on everyday life not being a struggle against imminent death. The problem with that slippery slope is that we protect our property by tying property to life: it takes the time of your life to create property. Who steals your purse steals not trash, but your life. Thus, we want the cops and army guys to die for our inalienable right to pursuit of property. But that is the other side of the same incremental argument that others offer for the "rights" to food, clothing, and shelter. In other words: when is life not an emergency?
It seems to me that a truly objective code of ethics would be applicable to all circumstances. If being in a tsunami removes all egoism, just what do you give up on a crowded elevator? ... In a city block? .... bidding for a contract ...?
Finally, lest we over-generalize Asians, allow me to offer that if you wish, I have detailed studies from private and government resources about how McDonald's taught the people of Hong Kong to stand in line -- and taught employees how to smile.
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/17, 7:51am)
|
|
