Latest Review of Obama's "Speach"

[TomAiello 26]

I've seen plenty of well travelled and intolerant people, and I've also seen plenty of very tolerant stay-at-home types.

I am thoroughly unconvinced that the two qualities (amount of travel and degree of tolerance) are more than marginally related.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,009]

>I've seen plenty of well travelled and intolerant people, and I've also seen
>plenty of very tolerant stay-at-home types.

I have as well. I just find that it is more difficult to maintain intolerance when you are exposed to a world that's very different from the one you imagine is out there. In my experience, there is indeed a lot of correlation between how widely someone travels and how accurate their worldview is - and with a wider worldview, it is somewhat harder to be a bigot.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I've seen plenty of well travelled and intolerant people, and I've also seen
>plenty of very tolerant stay-at-home types.

I have as well. I just find that it is more difficult to maintain intolerance when you are exposed to a world that's very different from the one you imagine is out there. In my experience, there is indeed a lot of correlation between how widely someone travels and how accurate their worldview is - and with a wider worldview, it is somewhat harder to be a bigot.

I think this is a bigoted viewpoint (by your definition)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,009]

>I think this is a bigoted viewpoint (by your definition)

So you think that someone with a larger worldview is a bigot because they don't have a worldview that you consider to be narrow enough? An odd definition.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I think this is a bigoted viewpoint (by your definition)

So you think that someone with a larger worldview is a bigot because they don't have a worldview that you consider to be narrow enough? An odd definition.

Yes, you do have an odd definition. Maybe you should consider revising your view of a bigot?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>I think this is a bigoted viewpoint (by your definition)

So you think that someone with a larger worldview is a bigot because they don't have a worldview that you consider to be narrow enough? An odd definition.

He thinks that the view that "those who travel less have a narrower worldview" is bigoted.

It's a defensible position. Why not discuss it instead of playing semantic games?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

He thinks that the view that "those who travel less have a narrower worldview" is bigoted.

It's a defensible position. Why not discuss it instead of playing semantic games?

How about, "skydivers who jump more often are likely to have a more thorough understanding of body flight than those who stay at home and read about it?" While it's certainly true that the couch flyer could have an equal or even better understanding of the physics involved he likely would come up short in describing the actual experience of the interaction between falling bodies during a four way scrambles competition.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

>I think this is a bigoted viewpoint (by your definition)

So you think that someone with a larger worldview is a bigot because they don't have a worldview that you consider to be narrow enough? An odd definition.

He thinks that the view that "those who travel less have a narrower worldview" is bigoted.

It's a defensible position. Why not discuss it instead of playing semantic games?

4 of the most traveled people I know are huge bigots. Painfully so that's it's hard to have conversations because they constantly bring it up

they use their travels to reinforce their bias of other cultures

(one is american, 2 are european, the other is chinese)

and I also know several little old farm couples that haven't traveled hardly out of state, let alone out of country that calmly and quietly accept anyone that comes into their lives.

so what - anecdotal examples

But the point is - BV posits that exposure to other cultures enables understanding - I agree that is allows the opportunity, but it also requires the traveler to start out with some amount of openness. And that's ingrained long before someone starts to travel in their lives.

So I think the real input is upbringing, not frequent flyer miles. So his assumption is biased. And bias based on a generality can be considered to be a bigotted viewpoint. I don't think so in this case (I think BVs view is a case of incorrectly misassigning cause to correlation.....), but it's a fair argument.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

How about, "skydivers who jump more often are likely to have a more thorough understanding of body flight than those who stay at home and read about it?" While it's certainly true that the couch flyer could have an equal or even better understanding of the physics involved he likely would come up short in describing the actual experience of the interaction between falling bodies during a four way scrambles competition.

1 - exposure to flight teaches one about flight - it doesn't necessarily teach one to like it

Understanding does not equal acceptance - one is knowledge, the other is a value judgment



If a scientist studies virulent diseases, I doubt they would learn to love them.

Edit: Now, guess who will use this as a launch point to incorrectly accuse me of comparing other cultures to virulent deseases? You get 3 tries - likely all will be correct.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

He thinks that the view that "those who travel less have a narrower worldview" is bigoted.

It's a defensible position. Why not discuss it instead of playing semantic games?

How about, "skydivers who jump more often are likely to have a more thorough understanding of body flight than those who stay at home and read about it?" While it's certainly true that the couch flyer could have an equal or even better understanding of the physics involved he likely would come up short in describing the actual experience of the interaction between falling bodies during a four way scrambles competition.

By your example, people would not only have to travel, but they would have to live and experience first hand issues like race and socialism. Going to a dropzone for 3 days doesn't make you a skydiver. Go to a socialist state and live under their laws for several years and then you can comment on the subject. Move in with a family of a different race and live as they do for a few months. Then comment on your views of race issues in their area. Simply traveling to a place (for more than 3 days by one poster's definition) doesn't do anything for gathering real insight into another person's life. Nor does it make you a more tollerant or understanding person.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

he likely would come up short in describing the actual experience of the interaction between falling bodies during a four way scrambles competition.

you have some (pretty decent) 4-way types try to describe the physics of body flight? It's hilarious at times.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

By your example, people would not only have to travel, but they would have to live and experience first hand issues like race and socialism. Going to a dropzone for 3 days doesn't make you a skydiver. Go to a socialist state and live under their laws for several years and then you can comment on the subject. Move in with a family of a different race and live as they do for a few months. Then comment on your views of race issues in their area. Simply traveling to a place (for more than 3 days by one poster's definition) doesn't do anything for gathering real insight into another person's life. Nor does it make you a more tollerant or understanding person.

Both you and rehmwa bring up good points. Just getting your passport stamped on the way to the luxury hotel doesn't expose you to much culture. You have to spend more time with the local people in order to better understand/appreciate their lifestyle. I've done both, but I couldn't have had either experience without traveling there.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

you have some (pretty decent) 4-way types try to describe the physics of body flight? It's hilarious at times.

Maybe I shouldn't use skydivers as a representative population. Too many variables. Bunch-o-phreaks!

[rehmwa 2]

The other aspect, is that spending a lot of time immersed in other cultures will just indoctrinate their bigotries into your attitude..... Allowing one to be a multinational bigot that despises everyone equally.

frankly, the more traveled some people get, the bigger the assholes they become.

Those that claim they are well traveled display this attitude a lot more than an attitude of acceptance of others.

But that's normal - when a 'typical' person gets what they think is 'special' knowledge or experience, it manifests as a self-superior attitude. It's a rational reaction. Just look at all the DZ.com newbie posts asking about how 'special' our culture is....

what a bunch of phreaks

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,009]

>He thinks that the view that "those who travel less have a narrower
>worldview" is bigoted.

In general, people who are exposed to more people/cultures/viewpoints have a wider worldview, in the same way that people who skydive more in more disciplines and at more DZ's have a wider view of skydiving than someone who has spent his whole career at a single DZ doing hop and pops.

Is that a bigoted viewpoint, as well? Is it unfair to claim that someone who has taught AFF at one DZ, set a freefly world record at another, done a 16-way CRW diamond in Florida, teaches wingsuit flight in Arizona, and serves on the USPA board has a wider view of skydiving than someone who never leaves their DZ and never tries any other part of the sport?

[wmw999 2,461]

The problem is that without some sort of data, all we're doing is comparing our impressions.

I know that people say that social sciences are worthless, but that's how you get the data to back up claims.

My personal experience is that people who have wider exposure to other cultures, particularly for extended periods, are generally more open to the thought that how they were brought up is not the only valid lifestyle. But it's just by experience (which includes living overseas).

Maybe we could get an NSF study funded; call it the DZ.COM SC Survey to study worldviews based on various factors.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Is it unfair to claim that someone who has taught AFF at one DZ, set a freefly world record at another, done a 16-way CRW diamond in Florida, teaches wingsuit flight in Arizona, and serves on the USPA board
.
.
.
has a wider view of skydiving than someone who never leaves their DZ and never tries any other part of the sport?

you mean - that guy in the first part (jack of all trades skydiver) knows more than

the guy in the second part (your typical sub 300 jump freeflyer)?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

So, who has a larger view of cultures -

the old timer that has traveled to all 50 states and lived in hugely urban and hugely rural areas and all in between


or some effect NY traveler that has seen 16 European countries' fine hotels (all within a 500 mile radius) - and his home turf in Manhattan


who do you think would be more tolerant and understanding of people that acted different from him?

Who do you think would be less tolerant of those people in "fly over land" "redneck country" "those people in those other countries"?


I'd submit the "world traveler" would be the jerk

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,009]

>the old timer that has traveled to all 50 states and lived in hugely urban
>and hugely rural areas and all in between

>or some effect NY traveler that has seen 16 European countries' fine hotels
>(all within a 500 mile radius) - and his home turf in Manhattan

The one who has traveled more would tend to have the wider worldview.

(Of course, in whatever example you come up with, the "old timer" will always win over the "effete" jerk, no matter what they've seen.)

[wmw999 2,461]

And that's the problem with applying large-scale one-dimensional classifications individual cases. No bipolar classification will ever do anything more than provide possible guidance. Even male/female has flavors.

And while blondes have more fun, who's a blonde?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

And while blondes have more fun, who's a blonde?

Wendy P.

And what do you mean by "fun"?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The problem is that without some sort of data, all we're doing is comparing our impressions.

Concur. And sharing anecdotes … & as has been invoked many times in this forum: the plural of anecdote is not data.

Anecdotes and impressions are among the things that make one go “hmmm” … and try to validate or disprove a hypothesis. Okay, that’s how it works for some of us … uh, me.
While not an exact match, at least one study has found that exposure to people of different ethnic backgrounds who had *positive* experiences with people of different ethnic backgrounds “tended to score higher on the tolerance measure” (than the control with no experiences.)

Quote

Maybe we could get an NSF study funded; call it the DZ.COM SC Survey to study worldviews based on various factors.

We can call it an ethnographic study of interpersonal dynamic tolerance of high risk tolerant individuals, eh? You wanna be PI?

/Marg … perhaps serendipitously sitting in Gardermoen airport. And stayed someplace *much better* than a 5-star hotel, imo.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

If I were to bet on it, I would bet that there is a positive statistical correlation between amount of travel and broader worldview. Not sure which would be the independent variable and which would be the dependent variable. Are people who are more tolerant inclined to travel more? (Dunno … another potential hypothesis.)

I’d also bet that there’s a positive statistical correlation between readers of “National Geographic” magazine and broader worldview, i.e., travel is one means to achieve a broader world view but hardly the only one.

The internet also enables access to means of expanding one’s worldview, e.g., one can read UK's Financial Times (FT), UK's Guardian, Norway’s Aftenposten, (unfortunately they discontinued the English version last year, I try to read the Norwegian version), Iran’s Tehran Times, Beijing papers, Brazilian papers, Egyptian papers, South African papers, Al Jazeera, Dawn (Pakistan), Times of India, etc.

Very, very few things in the world have solely binary options.

Traveling may be sufficient, but it is not necessary or sole path.

I do agree that there are (1) outliers of individuals who have extensive travel experience who do seem to reinforce their own biases, whether that is because they don’t leave the apocryphal 5-star hotel, leave base, interact with anyone other than other Americans when travelling, or something else; and (2) world travel, or even domestic travel, is not the sole causal variable for tolerance. It is possible than one might never travel more than 10 miles from where one was born (city or rural) and still be tolerant … however exactly one defines that. (The study I referenced above apparently used one method.) Which scenario is more probable is unclear.

Altho’ anecdotal, a couple illustrative examples: I remember when I was 13 on my first trip to Europe. Went with the Girl Scouts, i.e., no hotels at all. Whenever we would pass a McDonalds, many of the other girls wanted to go there. I wanted to try English fish & chips, escargot, frog legs … anything that I couldn’t get in the US (easily).

Was that because I was a girl from rural, upper Midwest? (Or was it because I was a Girl Scout?
But there were other girls from very similar backgrounds who weren’t interested in trying new things too much. Just being in a foreign country was enough ‘newness’ for some at ages 13-16. Then and now I would not describe any of the observations/experiences in terms of tolerant/intolerant or bigoted. Rather degrees of sense of adventurism. Otoh, I also wasn’t trying to ‘exoticize’ the cuisine of West Yorks either (if one can call West Yorks “exotic” ), which is another facet.

A dozen or so years later I was in Kathmandu with a group of trekkers and climbers. On a visit to Pashupatinath Temple complex, we encountered a Hindu funeral service/ritual. A body was being prepared for burning and another was being immolated along the river. We were on the opposite bank. Some of my trekking/climbing mates moved to the river’s edge to get closer to take pictures. As I recall there weren’t many other westerners around.

The second thought that went through my head (& has lasted the longest, as I don’t remember the first) was “is that like a tourist taking a picture of my grandma’s funeral?” (Asking a ponderous question not an indictment.)

One of the folks taking pictures was a friend of mine from another small, rural, lower Midwest town and others were well-travelled climbers. I didn’t say anything … mostly because I didn’t consider it worth making a big deal out of it … but also because I was unsure of the customary behavior.

Later, one of the local guides brought it up to the group trying to explain as delicately as reasonable that it would be seen as offensive and disrespectful to most Hindus. (None of us were Nepali Hindus – he had all the credibility & authority.) My friend just hadn’t thought about it possibly being offensive or disrespectful. She was motivated by curiosity. It wasn’t intentional. Another guy got defensive – I’ll leave it to the reader to imagine his background. So one person treated it as a learning experience/moment; another wanted to portray it as the native Nepali’s fault.

And goodness knows I’ve made cultural and linguistic faux pas. Does one learn from it or stubbornly blame someone else seems to be a more indicative and interesting question to me. YMMV.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying