We often idealize foreign cultures because the people we encounter from them—like diplomats, artists, and intellectuals—are often exceptional individuals. In contrast, the people we see in our own culture, including those in different social or professional groups, represent a full spectrum of society, not just the elite.
This “selection bias” explains why our feelings about the “cultures” we are most familiar with, such as different professions or social circles, are more mixed. For instance, a top doctor may interact with other top doctors they choose to associate with, but they work with nurses of all skill levels. This can lead to a skewed perception.
Essentially, our judgment of any group is heavily influenced by whether we’re exposed to its best, its worst, or a random sample.
Are you trying to convince me that not all Indians are software developers?
(This effect can also be weaponized, for example in some circles you can’t mention Russia without being reminded that it is a land of Dostoyevsky etc., so it’s like if you oppose Russia politically, you oppose art itself.)
This would be a great strategy in a world where people care about facts.
Even if I provided a quote, they would probably accuse me that I made it up, or took it out of context. I don’t expect that most of them have actually read the books.
I’m curious, what specific examples of idealizing foreign cultures did you have in mind Laconophilia? Francophilia? Swingjugend? I’m I right in assuming the stereotype/myth of the Circassian beauty doesn’t apply? (despite being a foreign people who were widely idealized).
I suspect there are already numerous Ph.D. dissertations that have been published investigating various idealizations of foreign cultures—so sure, yes, all of those and more. I think it would take a lot of careful thinking to deconstruct a specific example and identify the contribution of culture-crossing selection effects.
We often idealize foreign cultures because the people we encounter from them—like diplomats, artists, and intellectuals—are often exceptional individuals. In contrast, the people we see in our own culture, including those in different social or professional groups, represent a full spectrum of society, not just the elite.
This “selection bias” explains why our feelings about the “cultures” we are most familiar with, such as different professions or social circles, are more mixed. For instance, a top doctor may interact with other top doctors they choose to associate with, but they work with nurses of all skill levels. This can lead to a skewed perception.
Essentially, our judgment of any group is heavily influenced by whether we’re exposed to its best, its worst, or a random sample.
Are you trying to convince me that not all Indians are software developers?
(This effect can also be weaponized, for example in some circles you can’t mention Russia without being reminded that it is a land of Dostoyevsky etc., so it’s like if you oppose Russia politically, you oppose art itself.)
:P if I was in those circles, I might point out that all the great Russian authors spill a lot of ink criticizing the Russian government.
This would be a great strategy in a world where people care about facts.
Even if I provided a quote, they would probably accuse me that I made it up, or took it out of context. I don’t expect that most of them have actually read the books.
“Russia is the land of Dostoyevsky, who I’ve heard is one of our greatest writers!”
I’m curious, what specific examples of idealizing foreign cultures did you have in mind Laconophilia? Francophilia? Swingjugend? I’m I right in assuming the stereotype/myth of the Circassian beauty doesn’t apply? (despite being a foreign people who were widely idealized).
I suspect there are already numerous Ph.D. dissertations that have been published investigating various idealizations of foreign cultures—so sure, yes, all of those and more. I think it would take a lot of careful thinking to deconstruct a specific example and identify the contribution of culture-crossing selection effects.