Hey now, that's cherry picking data if I've ever seen it. Of course Nevada has a high suicide rate. Try comparing Alaska to sunny states where people don't throw their life savings away.
You are misunderstanding me, I am asserting that the data doesn't match the "smiling people live in nice places" theory. Alaskans smile, despite having a high suicide rate and living in a miserable climate. Nevadans aren't know for being particularly pleasant or cold (there isn't a stereotype about the attitudes of Nevadans one way or the other, as far as I can tell) live in a sunny climate and have a huge suicide rate. Coloradans live in an absolutely beautiful state, that doesn't have Alaska's brutally dark winters to boot, their suicide rate is relatively high, but they are neither known for being overly pleasant or particularly cold. Washington has "the Seattle freeze", but has a lower suicide rate than Oregon.
"Climate"<->"is superficially pleasant" is all over the board. Some examples seem to support the theory (allegedly Russia), but plenty of others seem to directly contradict it (Alaska, with a miserable climate, high suicide rate, and very outwardly pleasant people). The South has a miserable climate, have plenty to be miserable about (poverty, literacy, lingering racism, etc) yet are very 'warm' people, New York has a worse climate, yet a lower suicide rate, but yet again rather cold or distant people.
This "Russians don't smile because they are miserable. Americans smile because they are happy" stuff is just pop-psych nonsense. The real world is not that simple.
Why is it difficult to accept that different groups of people, with different heritages, cultures and traditions, might have ever so slightly different ways of presenting themselves to society and interacting with each other? It seems very implausible to me that this might not be the case.
Consider other sort of differences, besides just "smiles or doesn't". For example, consider that cultural differences with hugging, cheek kissing, hand holding, etc are all pretty non-controversial. Nobody is trying to explain that platonic friends in California don't hold hands because Californians don't make close friends like Saudi Arabians do. Anyone trying to say that would be laughed at.
>Alaska, with a miserable climate, high suicide rate, and very outwardly pleasant people
Were did you get the last one from?
>Nobody is trying to explain that platonic friends in California don't hold hands because Californians don't make close friends like Saudi Arabians do. Anyone trying to say that would be laughed at.
That's because holding hands, is not a core human facial expression, unlike smiling.
Touching others is a core human expression, and has to be suppressed in kids ("boys don't do that, it's gay"). Some cultures do that, others doesn't. No difference between that and smiling to me. - both cultural stuff.
Touching others (in whatever form) is different than "holding hands" in the way some cultures do. The difference is that there are hundrends of ways to touch someone, and thousand of circumstances where you do so. So any particular form is just one of many.
On the other hand, you carry your face and its' facial expression constantly, and your expression is the most basic form of interaction you have with another person socially, with talking as distant second. Furthermore, there are few expressions, are (almost?) all are universal, like smiling and crying.
Heck, you could live in the same room with a person for a month, with all kinds of normal interaction (eating, talking, etc) and never one touch him/her, and much less in any socially meaningful way (like holding hands or hugging). Not at all like avoiding having your face seen.
