Cultures are basically a continuum. They have their own different subcultures (and even countercultures), and they are also belonging to wider categories, which don't have clear-cut frontiers, especially in globalised times. You're in for a surprise if you assume too much about an individual, based on the culture he's supposed to represent. Even at the smallest scales (like within an amazonian tribe) there are opposing currents, ideologies, outlooks.

"Culture" isn't a very solid category. You can't tell precisely where it ends, where another starts, what differences it can englobe. There are shared assumptions and representations, shared expected behaviours due to collective socialisation. But everybody opposes their own mainstream cultural norms and values to some extend, and everybody refers simultaneously to different sets of norms and values. It's quite chaotic, in practice. And these contradictions are important : they make a "culture" difficult to describe univocally, because these conflicting norms and values constitute it together. Essentialising cultures -especially national ones- is misleading (and dangerous), whether from abroad or from within the countries (traditionalists attempting to define who is a true [themselves] and who are the not-real-ones). Not to mention the evolutive aspects, as subcultural elements can become mainstream with time, redefining what is supposed to be "exceptionnal" (how much?) on such or such aspect of life.

Just take -for instance- the banal right-wing left-wing oppositions, that often split countries in more or less equivalent halves. They represent very different ideas of what cultural identity is, and what elements belong to it. Describing a "mentality" that matches all the political spectrum is difficult, so is defining common beliefs (people have different beliefs, not only in terms of religion). The common ground isn't necessarily a collective common ground, and may be too secondary to really oppose, say, the neighbour country's common ground (while the other elements can be shared trans-nationally). People may feel more foreign from different people in their own country than from like-minded people from abroad. The sum of levels at which one can feel different or similar to others doesn't necessarily have a much dominant "national" proportion.

Yes, you can -at some descriptive level- study the official discourses and self-representations in a nation, what mainstream culture defines as a norm. But people don't match this statistical norm. And if you study smaller groups, their differences may make the global descriptive level a bit moot. The word "culture" is good for comparing two specific groups (of whatever scale) on some specific level (on set of elements). But it must not be taken that seriously, or become an absolute descriptive label. It's one environmental element, not extremely determining, and the wider the scale the more loosely it actually describes people...

I'm afraid so. Totally different street pattern, building numbers system etc etc. I would die there without GPS in a second :D

I have to ask. Define "National Personalities". Because it's hard to separate that from culture and things like popular food in a country.

I'm curious is all and think it's relevant to the discussion.

I just got owned by 2 posts. :) One from Psyringe and one from Telika. I can see now that I just put the majority of people from each non melting pot country into categories(national personalities) to just simplify things for my brain. Not so much data this way but it is still wrong to do such a thing because it can lead to bad things like being prejudice. From now on, I will try to see people as just people.

Hmm. There is no exact, clear-cut definition of "personality" that all scientists would agree on, so this question is very hard to answer.

On a practical level, you could probably take the dimensions from the most popular personality tests (Big Five, 16PF), and state that a "national personality" must be a pattern of these factors that is specific to a given nation, i.e. significantly different from those of other nations. That's probably not a very good answer, but the best I can muster right now.

On a practical level, more research is done on cultural differences (partly because, contrary to "national personalities", you get more results here). For example, there are studies showing that seemingly simple ways of interaction, like openly disagreeing with a superior, or pitching an idea to a superior during a private visit, are seen hugely different between cultures - that's one of the things where global corporations need to train their employees in, which is another reason why people are researching these aspects; there's an actual demand here. ;) With regard to "national personality", there is little need to do such research, because you do find every type of personality in every culture.

I know it's politically incorrect, but I really do love America. Well, the New York part of America... which is different than much of it. So I'm happy where I'm from. There's a lot of diversity, variety.. culture. It's fun.

Being from Canada, one of the reasons I want to leave is because everything is becoming regulated, which makes it harder to live a decent life. Land is crazy expensive in British Columbia as well, at least anywhere its desirable to live. I want to live in a country that is more free.

Canada does have good indexes when you look at Wikipedia. It's a good country its just not the social environment that I want to be in right now. I think New Zealand or Australia would be better.

As for politics liberal to me means usually in the middle, not too far to the left or too far to the right. That is not the case any more. There are extremes in the country. B.C. is very far to the left while Alberta is far to the right but that is changing. There's not much balance any more. Balance is good but its also the hardest to maintain lol.

Maybe the countries I would want to live in are not any better? Regardless moving would help for me and my family.

I understand the problem, that there isn't a clear cut answer yet and that it probably never will be one. But that was interesting reading nonetheless and I thank you for the answer.

About business problems I have heard that mentioned a lot. Now that we live in a global world society, well we do, I believe it's a good thing the businesses are doing something about this. The better we understand each other the better the world will be. Just as long as it spreads from the business world which it surely will.

Thank you for a reason to post a link to a music video that I really like. :)

Vanessa Carlton. Nolita Fairytale

I would believe you would be hard pressed to find a "better" country, at least not one country that's significantly better in every or most aspects. You may find other countries to be just as good or "different", though I know some people who lived in New Zealand and they spoke REALLY highly of the country.

As for liberal, I consider "liberal" to be center-left, essentially I mean good social, political and economic freedoms, but with a state that's there when the time to regulate those aspects of life arise. And I also don't really care for the present state, I like to sit back and look at the medium sized picture. Every country goes through more or less liberal times, but if you take say, 25-year periods, I don't think you would see a significant shift to the right or left. (Though its true that the liberals of today may look like the conservatives of tomorrow.)

Again, I may be talking out of my ass.

; I think you have good points. Some of the common wealth countries are hard to beat, I'm probably biased why I want to leave Canada. It would just be nice to get away from the politics that have wrecked a way of life for my family and many others. Clear the air/head so to speak.

Funny I've always wanted to visit Argentina, is it nice? Or would you leave if you could? Sorry that 2nd question came across as a little rude. Didn't mean it like that.

Left, right, liberal or conservative is much ruled by which economic models and theories are the rage at the time. So if you want to look at what is left and right now and historically take a look at the history of economic theories.

As in much else you have to follow the money trail to get to the bottom of what is going on and why.

Well, sociologist Eric Fassin has pointed out (link in french) that the whole political spectrum in France has kept shifting to the right. To the point where today's left wing resembles the right wing of the 70s.

I guess it may depend on the subjects.

Definitly France- Paris or Japan-Tokyo.

Almost anywhere is better than Lebanon :/...Especially nowadays...

I don't know. Depends on the person. I DID leave Germany because I didn't like the overall atmosphere. I don't regret that I did. And I AM happier where I am now. I tried a few countries before I settled on one, too [Germany, Belgium, Sweden, UK]. And really - there ARE cultural differences; not in the broad brush senses (every society, anywhere, is human at the base), but in the small subtle differences. Those do matter, too.

I love the fact that the part of the UK I live in most people haven't lost their playfulness even when engaged in serious and professional work (I agree that national borders aren't good indicators / there's parts of the UK I wouldn't enjoy living in, equally as much). There's less pretence here than in other parts of the world I lived in. And really - there's a marked difference between that and Germany. And Sweden. In that - there is something like a mainstream culture in each place I've been. Perceptions of what is acceptable - different ways of how MOST people interact with each other. There's disadvantages, too, of course - there's no such thing as a perfect country - but the social atmosphere matters to me, a lot. More than financial wealth.

That said - this is how it worked for me. Doesn't mean it has to work for everyone like that. I, personally, would make the same decisions again, however.