How to win friends and influence people

[Cyrus]

A sampling of public opinion about the United States in 11 nations around the world, including Australia, paints a picture of an arrogant superpower with an enviable economy - which is a greater danger to world peace than North Korea!

The way the United States wields its great power worried many of the 11,000 people polled, in Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, France, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Russia, South Korea and the United States.

Australia is usually perceived as sympathetic to the U.S. Well, only 25% of Australians thought the US more dangerous than North Korea, but 54% thought it more dangerous than Russia and 38% said America was more dangerous than Iran.

The poll was taken in May and June 2003 for a BBC broadcast, "What the World Thinks of America".

Over the 11 countries polled, 56% said the US was wrong to attack Iraq, including 81% of Russian respondents and 63% of those in France.

An overall of just 37% said the war was right, including 54 per cent of Australians and Britons, 74 per cent of Americans and 79 per cent of Israelis.

Only 25% of those asked - excluding Americans - said US military might was making the world "a safer place". Overall, 41% agreed the U.S. is a "force for good in the world", and 55% disagreed.

The al-Qaeda terrorist organisation was ranked as more dangerous than the US [Comment : pheww!], but the Americans were judged overall to be a greater threat than Russia, China, Syria and two members of Bush's Axis of Evil - Iran and North Korea.

A majority in every country, including the United States, said America is arrogant, for a total of 65% overall. In Australia, 72% said Americans are arrogant.

http://atlasgeo.span.ch/fotw/images/u/us.gif

/forums/images/icons/grin.gif

George W Bush failed to impress 58% of those quizzed. [Comment : Only 58%?!] These respondents said they had a "fairly unfavourable" or "very unfavourable" view of the American president. If the American respondents were removed from the sample, the number rises to 60%.

..Hey, there's good news too in the poll, such as Australians loving the Jerry Springer Show! Read more if you want here (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/18/1055828368686.html).

[Jimbo]

Cyrus I love statistics, they can be very useful. Now we know what percentage of the populace of each country polled that should be eliminated leaving us open for a very favorable poll the next go round.

[Zeno]

Cyrus,

Interesting post. By the way, I do like the flag. Looks Great. Good Job. The US is not dangerous, just flamboyant - most people do not know the difference.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

I guess it's hard not to be at least a bit arrogant when the rest of the world is in varying degrees backwards by comparison. Not that we don't still have some backwardness of our own to overcome.

[andyfox]

The Gods of The Copybook Headings tell us that people who are not us are backward.

In any event, Mr. Bush does not care one bit about what people in other countries think of him. He only cares what those who will vote in 2004 think of him. He raised $5 million of the $200 million he will use to create those thoughts yesterday here in California.

[MMMMMM]

AF: "The Gods of The Copybook Headings tell us that people who are not us are backward."

Where does it tell us that????

Of course, the caste system is backward, but I see nothing in the poem that even alludes to what you are saying.

[BruceZ]

Heh, I had the exact same thought. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

We should all play games for which we have an advantage, and avoid those for which we are at a disadvantage. Obviously we don't do so well at games for which the object is to be well liked, but we seem to be the best in the world at games for which the object is to enforce one's will through military and economic superiority. Game selection is arbitrary, but to the extent that these games allow us to achieve our objectives, proper game selection determines whether we ultimately win or lose.

[Cyrus]

"We should all play games for which we have an advantage, and avoid those for which we are at a disadvantage. Obviously [the United States] don't do so well at games for which the object is to be well liked, but we seem to be the best in the world at games for which the object is to enforce one's will through military and economic superiority. Game selection is arbitrary, but to the extent that these games allow us to achieve our objectives, proper game selection determines whether we ultimately win or lose."

I particularly admire the long-term aspects of the United States' foreign policy.

It's so peculiar and so contrary to any sensible set of objectives, that it deserves the other meaning of the term 'foreign' too.

But why be surprised? Since the days of Nixon, one of the objectives of the Best & Brightest was to keep the opponent on his toes by behaving "a little like a dangerous lunatic", in other words without consistency or logic. I assume this must have been such an advanced concept of Game Theory that the rest of us mortals did not appreciate it nearly enough, seeing as we were having full nuclear war with the Bear in the 'game' parameters.

What a parade of morons.

[Cyrus]

"I guess it's hard not to be at least a bit arrogant when the rest of the world is in varying degrees backwards by comparison [to the United States]."

Ecce homo.

[adios]

This was my favorite portion of the article:

"In Australia, participating ABC broadcaster Tony Jones said 63 per cent of the Australians thought they were more cultured than Americans, in terms of good taste, manners, upbringing and education.

ok the USA is arrogant /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

"We tend to see America through the prism of its own mass media, where there is not much evidence of any of those things," he explained, giving as an example the Jerry Springer show, airing daily in Australia.

No doubt a rational conclusion.

In such shows, Jones said, "you can watch civil society literally imploding on screen. ... It's tasteless. It's ill-mannered. It's crass. This may be America's dirty washing, but it's actually hanging on our lines."

Amazing that the more sophisticated, humble folks would enjoy watching "civil society imploding" or something that is "tasteless, ill-mannered, crass" in short someone's "dirty washing." I assume someone there enjoys it and isn't forced to watch the show.

Australians love American movies and music, he said. They largely see America as arrogant, but still think it's a force for good in the world."

Glad to see we can entertain the more cultured and humble among us.

I'm surprised there wasn't a question about introspection I'm sure the US would have been at the bottom there as well /forums/images/icons/grin.gif.

[andyfox]

I wasn't referring to the poem itself, but the Gods. After all, who are the Gods of the Copybook Headings?

[MMMMMM]

I don't know who the 'Gods' of the Copybook Headings are, nor do I know what the 'Copybooks' or 'Headings' are (although I have a guess), but I think the poem still has merit even if you simply insert anything vague or mystical in place of the phrase. If Kipling made those Gods up as he wrote the poem and named them on a whim I would think the same.

If the phrase has specific and important meaning beyond the messages in the poem, please do elaborate. And does it changes the meaning of the poem substantially from what it would mean had Kipling named them on a whim?

[andyfox]

Copybooks were the lesson books that schoolchildren used in England. The Headings were words of wisdom or mottoes used at the head of each lesson. I take the "Gods" to be the "writers" of the Headings, either in the literal sense of the book writers themselves who had used the eternally valid lessons of England's success to determine what schoolchildren's lessons should be, or the figurative sense of th eeternal truths themselves.

[MMMMMM]

Truth is a defense.

[Zeno]

"Truth is a defense"

Only in politics.

In Science, it is the offense.

And in Religion, Truth is what you make it.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

How is Truth what you make it in religion?

Truth is Truth regardless of whether we know it or not, regardless of whether we even exist. Our existence has impact, but does not change fundamental truths of the universe.

Not knowing something, or being unable to know something, does not imply that all beliefs regarding it are equally valid or equally invalid.

Some beliefs are closer to Reality, to Truth, than others--even if we are incompetent to determine which ones. And I don't believe we are totally incompetent in that direction.

Also, I don't believe that universal truths are subject to change on the whims of one or many humans.

[Zeno]

"How is Truth what you make it in religion? "

I was trying to refer to a well-known fact - religion is mostly made up, if there is any truth in it, it is by accident, whereas other forms of inquiry make legitimate attempts at truth or reality as best we can determine the path.

Some of your post is a good analogy to the pursuit of "scientic truth" if you take my meaning.

We may be aiming at the same target - just got crossed up in word play.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

crossed up in word play, yes

[John Cole]

M,

You are walking on quicksand here, I think. Name one "Universal Truth."

John

[Cyrus]

Name one "Universal Truth."

Well, I would but it's been so long ago I took the ride.

[MMMMMM]

Interesting, and I would love to read some a sampling of them.

I have generally found that old words of wisdom--from whatever source--tend to have more meaning and truth to them than the bulk of more modern philosophies and outlooks. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they have stood the test of time to be preserved.

As an example, take Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard Improved, 1758. The sayings he collected here (and perhaps invented a few himself) are priceless. On a pound-for-pound basis I would stack them up without hesitation against any large modern philosophy or plan for socially engineered welfare. Indeed, if I had practiced these sayings in my own life, the various hard times I found myself in from time to time would almost surely have been avoided. So I also suspect that if Americans were to truly adopt the sayings outlined in Poor Richard Improved, 1758, that there would soon be virtually no need for welfare in this country.

Anyways I love reading old wisdom since it frequently seems so timeless and true.

link to Poor Richard Improved, 1758:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/loa/bf1758.htm

[MMMMMM]

2 + 2 = 4. No opinions can or will change that.

If I want to step out on a limb here, I'll add that the speed of light is a constant.

[John Cole]

No. Not math or physical laws. Perhaps you've heard of or seen this famous ruse:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

[John Cole]

M,

I had a bit of trouble with this one: Felix quem faciunt aliena Pericula cautum. I think it means "a happy man is scared by aliens," but I might be a bit off with my translation.

[Zeno]

John,

You put Gasoline in your vehicle; not water.

QED /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

-Zeno

Was this the article that created all the uproar a few years ago?

Will we all know when the sociologists get together and change the Gravitational Constant? /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

Never heard of it or seen it (and it looks rather long to digest in a twinkling; a pity there isn't a summary at the end;-)) I'll look through it briefly, but since you told me it's a ruse I'm less interested in so doing;-) In the meantime a few related thoughts:

Things such a tree falling in a forest with nobody there to hear: the tree falling still generates sound waves, whether or not someone is present. If someone is present, their presence may alter the event or sound waves slightly.

If the universe was (or was not) formed by a Creator, whether we believe or disbelieve or remain agnostic does not alter whether the original event occurred, or whether or not a Creator existed or still exists.

Various religions hold different cosmological views. It is a virtual certainty that some of these views are closer to reality than others (and it is also extremely likely that all such views are incomplete and contain some errors).

Mathematics works whether we are present or not: It still takes two H's and one O to make water...if no one is there to count, it doesn't change and work for one H and one O, or one H and two O's.

Not mathematical or physical laws? Are there any other types of universal truths? And if there are spritual laws--such as good acts bring good things, and bad acts bring bad things--could they possibly be due at base to unseen mathematical or physical laws?

One idea I really like is the Hindu concept called The Net of Indra. Picture in your mind a vast number of little clear colored glass balls hanging about in space, each reflecting the light and images of all the rest. The patterns and reflections are virtually uncountable and incredibly varied and complex. Yet if any ball is moved or changed, the entire pattern of reflections and images is changed for the entire array and for every ball--every ball will now capture and transmit a new reflection of the total pattern. In some similar fashion, every action that we humans perform has reverberations that travel forever throughout the universe, and we and our actions are like the glass colored balls and the light that passes through them and is reflected. The effects of our actions do not stop with what we view as the end of a specific event. (Also, specific events are really parts of longer events, but for convenience's sake we demarcate the so-called starts and finishes). When I think of things like this, even if they are oversimplified, I feel that they contain some great truths and it makes me want to cry because I am not a better person, with a stronger character. And of the times I have resolved to do or be better, I have often failed, or forgotten my resolutions in the struggles and aggravations of daily living.

[MMMMMM]

I was hoping you or Cyrus would translate;-) Glad you did. Or could Franklin perhaps have found it in a Fortune Cookie?

[andyfox]

There are quite a few new biographies of Benjamin Franklin out now. Edmund S. Morgan has one called (appropriately) "Benjamin Franklin"; H. W. Brands's is called "The First American"; soon out will be Walter Isaacson's "Benjamin Franklin: An American Life." There is also one called "Bolt of Fate" by Tom Tucker which casts doubt on the story about Franklin flying a kite and "discovering" electricty in lightning.

I've read other works by Morgan, Brands and Isaacson; all are good writers and knowledgable historians, so their Franklin biographies should be good reading. But they also probably love Franklin too much. As antidote, I recommend Francis Jennings's "Benjamin Franklin, Politician: The Mask and the Man," which shows a bit of the seamier side of Franklin's activities and self-created persona.

[Cyrus]

"John,

You put Gasoline in your vehicle; not water.

QED

-Zeno"

Well, Zeno,

There are some people on this website who would get rich if instead of gasoline we were putting in our vehicle hot air.

--Cyrus

[MMMMMM]

Ecce homo;-)

[John Cole]

M,

In yor first post, I thought you were about to imply some sort of universal truth about human nature, i.e. some precept by which we may lead our lives. For example, Jane Austen begins Pride and Prejudice with "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."

John

[John Cole]

Zeno,

Yes, and this did cause an uproar. Believe it or not, some scholars have defended its publication.

[MMMMMM]

Perhaps the best I can think of along such lines may be found in Poor Richard Improved, 1758:

"Silence is not always a Sign of Wisdom, but Babbling is ever a Mark of Folly."

Particularly true in courts of law, and at the poker table;-)