--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At Stardate 20030630.1654, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> >Why do so many europeans want to leave the discussion just when it get's
> >down to the details? You know? You get over the usual yelling and
> >screeming, down to the point where you are just starting to be able to
> >form some kind of consistent model, and the europeans loose intrest.
>
> It's not just the Europeans, you'll probably get a similar reaction from
> other non-Americans. You see, when discussing a topic like this, we often
> notice that Americans tend to dig in their heels and appear unwilling to
> even *consider* the possibility that America's ways are not always the best
>
> ways, let alone *admit* that The American Way isn't always the right way.
> Discussions become pretty useless at that point, so we give up and turn our
>
> attention elsewhere.
Well, we continue to believe that our way is supperior becouse when we get
down to the details others stop comunicating. We will certainly admit when we
are wrong or we see a better way, but you have to show how that is the case
first, and that requires a more indepth discussion. If you aren't willing to
have that discussion, then there is no motivation for us to change our
opinoins.
>
> >Could it be that they don't like what is -in- the details? Could it be
> >that they know what you will dind there? Or are they so unmoveable from
> >their opinions that they don't want to focus when it get's to the point
> >that those opinons are chalanged?
>
> None of these possible reasons sound plausible. In fact, such statements
> come across as rather aggressive and insulting. Now, I'm sure you didn't
> mean to come across as aggressive and insulting, and maybe it wouldn't be
> considered aggressive and insulting by other Americans, but when engaging
> in discussions with non-Americans you must keep in mind that non-Americans
> have different values and a different cultural background. What may be
> considered an entire harmless statement in the US may be considered a grave
> insult elsewhere.
You keep going there, but you refuse to discuss the differences in the
"truism" you are using. Your truism is that a person should try and come
across in a way that is comfortable to the person they are talking to. The
American way is to accept others the way they are, and be tolerant of their
differences, even if they -seem to be- "comeing across" in an aggresive or
insulting way.
>
>
> >I was able to form (what I believe to be) a consistent model of the
> >"tolerance" in europe and the US, and to describe the interaction of
> >components in that model. I also beleive that this model shows the
> >superior effectiveness of tolerance in America.
>
> As has been pointed out before, America's alleged "superior tolerance" is
> contradicted by its crime statistics.
We can go into crime again. But in most studies show American crime is no
greater than European crime statistics, and is infact lower than many
countires. Our press simply publicises it more, and when they do publicise
it, they make a biger deal out of the more bizzar or seemingly insesant
problems.
Now, our media, I admit, can seem a bit over the edge and paranoid at times.
I will agree to that. Like the whole Monica thing. I still just don't get
what the big deal is, with someone elses sex life.
Besides many of the most organized criminals in the US did not grow up here.
> >But I have heard no agreement or disagreement. By your silence can I
> >assume that you agree?
>
> Do not *ever* assume that someone's silence means agreement! It is quite
> possible that the other person has lost interest in the discussion or has
> been busy with something else and hasn't had time yet to respond.
> With such assumptions you can also falsely attribute opinions to someone;
> FREX, I've once been accused of supporting terrorism by a certain someone
> because in that person's mind, I hadn't vigorously enough condemned the
> September 11 attacks. It will be obvious that making such assumptions and
> statements doesn't exactly improve the atmosphere on a mailing list.
>
I admit that we in the US consider someone who does not respond with
disagreement to either be in agreement or "passive agressive". Passive
agression is a much more hanous offense than outright agression in my circles
(not all of the US). So perhaps that is a NA thing rather than a US thing.
But still, the general rule is:
1 Leave the discussion when there is still information to be explored- you
are simply unwilling to admit that you are wrong.
2 Silence- agreement or passive agressiveness, which is another sign that you
are simply unwilling to admit that you are wrong.
3 Acknowledge agreement on who we disagree, but continue to disagree. The
caviate of this one is you can't just state that, see (1).
But now it seems that we even disagree on this. And in such cases that are
imovable, it is ussualy the side which will not meet and continue the
discussion which is considered the aggressor. (Palistine?)
Maybe this is why Americans are seen as sideing with Isreal. Becouse we may
disagree with them, but at least they are generaly willing to -talk- about
it.
What do you think?
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
[Sponsored by:]
_____________________________________________________________________________
The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
