
The American-Western European Values Gap - subsystem
http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/11/17/the-american-western-european-values-gap/
======
bluthru
I find it interesting that more women than men consider religion important to
them, when religion is partially to blame for them being marginalized in
society.

On the whole, I just look at those figures and feel a deep amount of shame for
my country (US). We'll catch up, but I think part of the reason for these
figures is that the US is relatively rural.

~~~
newnewnew
I am consistently amazed by the profound contempt which modern liberalism
holds for the traditional role of the wife and mother. In traditional
societies, motherhood is not looked down upon or held in contempt, but mothers
are honored. As the managers of families and the people that consistently
invest the most in the next generation, they are the backbone of society.
Every successful person today owes his success to a chain of hundreds of
successful mothers, stretching back into pre-history.

It is only as our planning horizon has shrunk from a thousand years to six
months that we begin to look on motherhood as a form of slavery. Females are
told that they must do anything _but_ a traditional female role to have value
in society. We cajole women to act like men. In a way, liberalism is
ironically misogynist.

It is little surprise then that Western liberals no longer breed above
replacement rates. Denigrating motherhood is not the way for a people to last
the aeons of time. I believe the future of the West is profoundly more
conservative than the present, because Darwin. Liberalism is a _suicidal_
ideology.

~~~
rbehrends
If managing families and raising children is such an honored and fulfilling
role and makes you the backbone of society, why don't conservative men fall
over themselves to fill that role?

My guess would be that they don't actually believe their own ad copy.

~~~
ajuc
Just as there are roles specified by society for women - there are roles
specified for men. Actually nowadays I think men have much less choice than
women if they care about society opinion at all.

Nobody blinks an eye when some women doesn't have kids and choose career. On
the other hand being a "house husband" that doesn't work and "only" deal with
house and kids is still considered weird and people think you are "not 100%
man".

See the whole "real men" stereotype. There's no "real women" stereotype. We
have one sex that have a choice, and one that doesn't. It's even visible in
fashion. Women wear what they want. Men doesn't wear dresses.

BTW at least part of the differences in salaries is direct consequence of
that. People expect men to keep working no matter the family situation,
because "man should work". With women there's significant probability that
they'll eventually choose kids, and salary reflects that belief.

Feminists try to deal with the salary gap by regulation - I don't think it
will work. You need to change society so men have same choice women have. It
will be even harder.

~~~
rbehrends
I don't necessarily disagree [1]. The point that I was making was that
childcare is often sold as a high-status job, when in reality it is generally
a low-status, low-reward job. This ties directly into your argument about
stay-at-home dads being looked down upon. It's the other side of the same
coin.

[1] Nor do I necessarily agree, either, but I don't want to get sidetracked.

------
coldtea
A lot of the questions are misleading -- placed with an American bias as to
what they meant. Eg the first table measures whether people value:

(a) "freedom to pursue one’s goals without state interference."

vs

(b) "State guarantees nobody is in need".

The formulation shows an American understanding/bias on the issue. For a lot
of Europeans (a) is not about real freedom, because it translates to big
corporations and private interests shaping your life and be given free pass to
exploit people.

That is, we don't see "state" as an enemy that restricts us, but as the
(imperfect of course) embodiment of our collective will, as stated through
democracy, that helps set the stage for our personal freedom.

So those same questions are also read as:

(a) Do you want to forgo a lot of democratic procedures, and have society be a
jungle where you are supposedly "free" but in practice the "big fish" can
crush you at will, or have you starve to work for them cheaper?

vs

(b) You want people to vote and use the state power to restrict exploitation
and need in the interests of the majority, and thus be able to enjoy your
individual freedom better.

So it's not really about valuing "freedom" vs "state", it's about how
different peoples see how freedom works and what state does.

~~~
Gormo
What's the difference between "big corporations and private interests" on the
one hand and "state" on the other? They seem in all cases to be organizations
of human beings with the capacity to concentrate and assert power over other
human beings.

The difference seems to be in the scale and scope of that concentration and
assertion of power. So, if you're inclined to minimize the capacity of _any_
external institution to shape your life or to exploit you, which option is
most optimal? Do you prefer option (a), which admits at most a haphazard and
ad hoc system of institutional control - one which can, with some effort, be
evaded - or option (b), which establishes a universal and de jure system of
institutional control, evading which requires resources inaccessible to most?

I've always found it odd that so many think the solution to the concentration
of power in the hands of a plurality organized institutions is to concentrate
all power in the hands of a single organized institution.

~~~
coldtea
> _What 's the difference between "big corporations and private interests" on
> the one hand and "state" on the other? They seem in all cases to be
> organizations of human beings with the capacity to concentrate and assert
> power over other human beings._

The difference is in the use, origin and organization of such "capacity".
Which makes all the difference in the world.

For one, state power comes from elections and laws passed by elected
representatives of the majority. Corporate and private interest power on the
other hand is arbitrary.

Second, the democratic state (however imperfect) was founded to serve the
people. And in most cases it was founded BY the people, through bloody
struggles against opressors (feudalism, colonial powers, the King, etc).
Corporate and private interest power on the other hand is self serving.

To put it in another way, "private interests" amount to a dictatorial state
(or, to be more presice, to a constellation of dictatorial regions of
control). Something people fight to get rid of, and establish democratic
states.

> _The difference seems to be in the scale and scope of that concentration and
> assertion of power._

Private interests, if left unguarded, can drawf states in scale and scope (and
have done so, in tons of historical examples, especially for less powerful
countries. The term "Banana Republic" is an example of that).

So, nope, the difference is in the origin and check of that power, as well as
the purpose of it.

> _So, if you 're inclined to minimize the capacity of any external
> institution to shape your life or to exploit you, which option is most
> optimal?_

No question about it: stump private interests at every opportunity.

~~~
sp332
There can be a marketplace for private companies. There is competition for
hiring workers as well as for selling goods. But the state is a monopoly.
While the state might start out as well-meaning, it will quickly attract
corruption which imposes itself on every citizen, leaving them without
recourse. If you leave a bad company and join or found a better one, that's
business as usual. If you revoke a government, that's revolution.

~~~
polymatter
"If you revoke a government, that's revolution"

In a democracy, its called an election. They happen regularly and you have a
direct say on them. The directors of large companies however you have
absolutely no say on.

Also, its not always possible to just "join or found a better" company for
many, many reasons. Perhaps my comparative advantage isn't in building up
companies against entrenched competition. Perhaps there isn't capital
available to start a company in a particularly capital intensive or regulated
industry. Perhaps the company tactics are awful enough to destroy me even if I
tried (eg. mafia visits, suppliers refuse to deal, FUD campaigns).

~~~
sp332
An election just rearranges the people who are in various pre-determined
positions. It doesn't change the structure of the government. If there is a
"chief surveillance officer", an election might change who is in that position
but you will still be spied on. In fact, what is more likely is that you won't
get to vote for that person directly, but the president you elect will appoint
a candidate and the congress you elect will approve that candidate. This means
you are even more removed from actually making any changes.

Even if a market is hard to enter, it's better than having armed officers show
up and charge you with treason for trying to overthrow the government. Reflect
on the political situation leading up to the American Civil War. Even with
that many people who felt that strongly about the issue of states' rights,
they were not able to change the structure of the government.

~~~
polymatter
All good points. But in most democratic countries while you don't vote for the
"chief surveillance officer" you vote for the person who is his boss (unlike
say, here in the UK where you can only vote for your local representative).
They ought to be able to push changes down from the top and have the ultimate
executive power to help them do so.

(PS. I am not aware of the US Civil War (beyond the Ironclad battle) so I can
not comment on that)

~~~
sp332
Well you might be aware that our federal government is divided into three
branches. The President doesn't get to decide what the laws of the land are,
that's up to Congress. So Congress creates a department, funds it, sets limits
on it, and then the executive branch uses those funds to do the job. It get
complicated, but to be specific, elections don't change laws. You would have
to elect enough representatives to change the law, a president to sign the
law, and then the courts would have to accept the law as constitutional.

------
rayiner
> About half of Americans (49%) and Germans (47%) agree with the statement,
> “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others;” 44% in
> Spain share this view. In Britain and France, only about a third or fewer
> (32% and 27%, respectively) think their culture is better than others.

The French only say that because they disagree with the "our culture is not
perfect" bit.

~~~
moocowduckquack
Oh look, French bashing, how very avant-garde.

~~~
vmarsy
rayiner's joke is aimed at this category of people :

>3\. WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD in this article :
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6037848](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6037848)

So, for people who only know France through Pepé le Pew, that is a good joke !

~~~
moocowduckquack
So are you saying it becomes funnier if you are more ignorant about the
subject?

~~~
ericd
Pretty much, milking a stupid cliche. Most Americans' only exposure to France
is stereotypes they've seen, or if they're more well traveled, exposure to
Parisians. Which is like if I came from another country, visited NYC, and
concluded that Americans were generally pretentious, almost never made eye
contact, and paid obscene amounts for rent.

~~~
jakejake
Ironic that you mention the cliche joke, then follow it up with a stereotype
about Americans exposure to culture.

~~~
EthanEtienne
Yes and irony is often hilarious.

------
iuguy
One possible reason for the British response in the Religious vs National
Identity question is that British identity can be a very fractious thing.

The UK is made up of constituent kingdoms, but not all of these are on the
island of Great Britain. Thus you can be technically British (i.e. of the UK)
without being British (i.e. of the island of Great Britain). This most notably
manifests itself amongst the Northern Irish, some of whom see themselves as
Irish (ethnicity, or wanting to be of a united Irish state) or British (of the
United Kingdom, but of island of Ireland).

To confuse things further, there's a debate going on over whether or not
Scotland should stay part of the United Kingdom or become a separate country.
Scottish nationalism is a very strange creature. Thus some people may identify
with being Scottish first, or solely as Scottish. This occurs to a lesser
extent in Wales and in England (being Welsh and English, not Scottish, that
would just be silly).

Additionally there are many people who are first or second generation British
with foreign parents or grandparents, particularly from former colonial
territories. I have friends who identify with being both British and Indian,
despite being born and raised on the island of Great Britain.

It all makes for a big, typically British mess. Finally, my wife was born in
Turkey, moved to England and became a British citizen, but she can never
become English because there's no English citizenship status.

~~~
arethuza
"Scottish nationalism is a very strange creature."

Why? We already have seperate legal, educational and health systems and a
government that deals with a lot of domestic policies.

We have a clear national identity and seem to be immune to the swing towards
the far right that seems to be happening in England. Personally, I would far
rather be in a Scotland that is independent, free of Trident and part of the
EU than left as an appendage to London in the Former UK.

[Sadly, I suspect we won't get indepedence, but I rankle a bit at this being
described as "strange"]

~~~
iuguy
Because unlike other common forms of nationalism, it's based on a sense of
self-determination rather than a sense of superiority (e.g. American, historic
British, Italian and German nationalism etc.).

~~~
arethuza
Ah - I'd never really thought of it like that. So when you meant "strange" you
meant "nice strange", not "scary strange". If that is the case the I am
standing down from my state of ranklement ;-)

[NB I believe the French (our occasional ancient allies) - had a saying along
the lines of "As touchy as a Scotsman"!]

------
tomhschmidt
Interesting that the US believes they shape their own destiny or that they are
the product of their own work, yet the 'cultural superiority' question seems
to indicate that they don't necessarily value what they have produced.

~~~
polemic
The death of Manifest Destiny...
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny))

------
perfunctory
I find it interesting that Americans have so little trust in their democratic
government, yet have so much faith in authoritarian phenomenon of religion.

~~~
newnewnew
Religion is a far more decentralized, organic, community-based institution (at
least in America). In contrast the American government is a distant faceless
bureaucracy, and even if a small subset of its employees are elected that
doesn't make Americans feel better about it telling them what to do. But
Americans are perfectly happy teaming up with their neighbors to help the
elderly in the community once a week with their church groups.

Religion _as it is practiced_ is not the bogeyman of liberals' dreams.

------
hrktb
This 'study' reaks of bias and hand waved conclusions...the list would be so
long, perhaps the extensive use of 'Americans' as a short hand for US citizens
in an international opinion survey is the most blatant give away ?

It comes from the Pew Reasearch Center, an US think tank chaired by former
Bill Clinton's secretary of States, funded by a very wealthy conservative
entity, and scanning the other surveys I get the same feeling of being very
transparent on the methodology while strongly aiming for a given output. Like
this one the NSA for instance: [http://www.people-
press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph...](http://www.people-
press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-
terror-tactic/2/)

PS: even for a selected target, what does questions like 'Our people are not
perfect, but our culture is superior to others' point to ? They surveyed that
short of half of the Christinans think themself as Christian first and citizen
of a country second. For these people, what does 'our culture' even point to ?

------
mmanfrin
The age difference in the cultural superiority question is really eye opening.
It went from 60% of 50+ Americans saying 'yes', to 37% for 18-29 -- second
lowest after France.

Glad to know that my generation has a sprinkling of modesty.

------
sillysaurus
I'd be interested to see the exact phrasing of each question.

~~~
SkittlesNTwix
I've taken a Pew Research Poll before. What struck me immediately was the
inane and terrible format of the questions. I actually said to the individual
giving the poll, "None of these questions really allow me to confer how I feel
about the issues that I know you're asking me about. They're basically
nonsense."

~~~
AndrewKemendo
I wonder if there is room in the market to disrupt polling then. I have never
been part of a poll but have heard similar bad things about their structure,
so I wonder if anyone is out there trying to make it more accurate.

~~~
pgeorgi
On the technical side you need two things for disruption:

1\. A sane test design. Before trying to pull an MVP here, please take some
psychology classes on that topic since there's already a huge body of work on
how to design a test in a way that lets you infer reliable data, even if
participants think the test is nuts (and try to sabotage it), or if they try
to second-guess "desired" answers ("Of course I'm not racist").

2\. Comparable data sets over time/regions. People are interested in how
things change. That's the incumbent advantage in this market, they have all
that stuff.

#2 also helps to get _some_ useful information out of insane questions (since
they're consistently insane over the years).

------
jkldotio
"Western Europe" is an odd and outdated term as it is the EU that is acquiring
political and economic powers and which some seek to federate. Leaving out the
most religious EU countries like Malta, Cyprus, Romania, Poland and Italy you
will get a very skewed picture if you are mentally equating Western Europe
with the European Union (which is a term often conflated itself with the
ambiguous "Europe"). Large portions of legislation in "Western Europe" are
decided upon by Southern European politicians in the European Council and the
European Parliament where representation is weighted by population in various
ways (QMV and MEP caps).

Some "North Eastern America" with a selection of blue states would give you
pretty different results to the USA mean as well. The question people would
ask though is: what justification do you have for putting that geographical
constraint on your study?

~~~
bitwize
"Western Europe" is a sort of Americanism historically used to distinguish
European NATO states and allies from Soviet-bloc states ("Eastern Europe").
Many states to the south and even far to the east (e.g., Greece) fall under
the geopolitical concept of Western Europe in this context.

------
ArkyBeagle
Arnold Kling has developed his "three-axis model."

The three axes are: \- Civilization/barbarism \- Oppressor/oppressed \-
Freedom/coercion

The idea is that people will have different attitudes on issues and that these
attitudes can be "plotted" on these three axes.

It is only a model, but I think it is a good one.

------
copx
Many of the questions are so stupid that I would refuse to answer them.

------
archildress
Unfortunately, my experience with corporate America aligns strongly with this
post.

