Hey all,

My name is Jovana Balanovic and I am a masters student in cross-cultural psychology at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. I am conducting a research project on 'how culture shapes who you are' and I would love to hear your views. Not only would you be contributing to important cross-cultural research but you might also learn something about yourself in the process.

All you need to do to contribute is fill in this short (approx. 20mins), completely annonymous survey by clicking on this link (or copy link into browser)- http://vuw.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_01iC8cZOhh3nvO5. The only criteria for participating is that you live in either in Australia, New Zealand or the US and are over 18. By the way, the link allows you to stop and return to finish the survey at a later time - so you don’t have to do it all at once.

Any contributions are appreciated and comments/discussion is welcome.
Thank you for your time,
Jovana

I will give you a tip Jovi, cross-cultural psychology and socioeconomic circumstance run parallel.

OK, I filled the form.

Frankly, I can't see any connection between the questions and culture. Also, the term 'my culture' is so ambiguous as to render the questions about it meaningless.

One essential fault is that this very question, "how culture shapes who you are", is absurd: the question of who I am (or who someone else is) was never addressed and indeed, who we are cannot be influenced by culture or by anything else. Instead, those questions were only about my mind, which is not that important because it has nothing to do with who I am and probably goes away anyway once the body dies.

Just did the survey.

There seemed to be a lot of personal stuff that doesn’t really relate to culture very much at all.

I had to answer practically all the questions pertaining to culture with a neutral response, as there are aspects of each question that your culture affects and aspects that it just doesn’t at all.

I'm glad it's not my taxes being wasted on this stuff.

Some people need to camouflage their navel to stop them meditating on it about this stuff.

Hasbeen,

All for the 'diversity-you-have-to-have' and it is your fault if there are unforeseen negative consequences.

Dear Jovana,

I've done your survey and I'm happy to contribute
to your research.

Most of us want to know about ourselves, why we do the
things we do. Sometimes the reasons are clear and well
within sight, but sometimes even our own actions, let
alone those of other people are puzzling.

Most people are interested in other people, and to understand
them it can be useful to know about their background and
their past experiences. Many people today -
also seek to find out
about their own ancestry and they try to trace the
development of their family over many generations - spending
a great deal of time recording their family tree as far back
as the records go.

Thank you for allowing me to contribute in a small way to
your research.

Bollocks.

Dear Is Mise,

Talking about bollocks ...

What the difference between a tractor and a
giraffe?

One has hydrolics
The other has high bollocks.

And -

Imagine yourself - walking down the street with
your wife and you accuse her of being ashamed
to be seen with you.

"That's total bollocks,"

she would assure you -

by text from across the road.

Dear Foxy,

Re – PC Membership 2074183

It has been drawn to our attention that some of your recent pontifications are in breach of our agreed mandate.

Your Brand Image has been carefully crafted to include an easily recognized format, rhetorical content and style.

We are concerned that some of your recent “snappiness” may be a sign of some deeper underlying stress, perhaps in response to lost traction of your adopted style.

Remember that your brand image was specifically designed to cover weaknesses in logic, critical thinking and content.

You were to maintain this through gushing and sickly sweetness, patronizing comment, avoiding content through diversionary tactics, pointing the finger at others from high moral ramparts, emotive argument, socialized platitudes and intellectualized misdirection.

This has worked well for you over time.

We accept that the proletariat is stirring and traction is being lost however, it is vital that you maintain this style and mantra even though this has caused the declining traction in the first place.

More of the same is absolutely critical. We cannot be drawn into any debate on the basis of content, reality or those pesky facts.

By getting snappy all you are doing is telegraphing the fact that our beloved mantra is no longer working.

In the event than anyone raises an issue of great significance and well worthy of debate, always find something of little or no consequence but assign to it a great deal of moral/value importance.

That way you can avoid distasteful topics of any real significance. As a bonus this will also prevent anyone else from discussing them.

Also you should avoid disengagement, it is a sign of weakness, capitulation and not a good look.

Keep up the great work in avoiding exposure of the paucity of progressive correctness.

PC remedial workshops will resume next month, bookings essential as they are in high demand.

Dear spindoc,

"Somebody in France wanted to put Voltaire
in jail. Somebody in Franco's Spain sent
Lorca, their greatest poet, to death
before a firing squad. Somebody in Germany
under Hitler burned the books, drove
Thomas Mann into exile, and led their Jewish
scholars to the gas chamber. Somebody in Greece
long ago gave Socrates the hemlock to drink.
Somebody in the USSR banned Solzhenitsyn and
Pasternak. Somebody at Golgothe erected a cross
and somebody drove the nails into the hands of
Christ. Somebody spat on his garments.
NO ONE REMEMBERS THEIR NAMES."
(Milton Meltzer - on censorship).

It's wise to remember spindoc, that -
attempts to diminish anyone - only works in the minds
of the conceptually and ethically impaired.

But keep trying old chap!

'morning Foxy,

Many thanks for your compliance with the description I offered of you.

Life can be a bitch, so can being a progressive. 70 percent of your post was indeed dedicated to my prediction of your response, "find something of little or no consequence but assign to it a great deal of moral/value importance". Do you think you have responded to the content or just ignored it?

When it comes to diminishing people, there is no effort required, you do it admirably on you own. Not that you will go anywhere near any challenge to such concepts.

When it comes to "the conceptually and ethically impaired". Isn't that response precisely what I predicted? Try to denigrate the messenger?

You can't help yourself can you?

You are a classic progressive, incapable of response to content, just a predetermined rhetorical reaction to anything that causes you discomfort.

You could always respond to content of course, but that would be outside your skill domain would it not?

Dear spindoc,

Still trying so hard - I see.

Tell you what -

When you have done the survey, and contributed
something to this discussion,
then you may be taken seriously.
I may even condescend to reading your posts.

cont'd ...

Dear spindoc,

You entered this discussion, judging from your
first post, to personally attack me.

Not exactly what I call constructive
criticism.

‘morning Foxy,

I might as well go for it as this is a dead thread anyway and deservedly so.

@Foxy << You entered this discussion, judging from your
first post, to personally attack me >>.

Yes sweetie, victimhood suits you admirably! You’re not personally that important however, your responses are fascinating because they don’t actually address the reason I entered the debate do they? I will help you though.

Judging by the number and content of responses to this article there seems little support for this survey. Consensus appears to question its relevance to the stated objectives, it seems ambiguous and meaningless. I tend to agree.

However, to reinforce your intellectual superiority, you have to find things that nobody else can “see” and rub their noses in because they are inferior and “fail” to see what you see.

Your response was to string together rhetoric and platitudes. << Most of us.. many…interested…past experiences…many seek >>…blah, blah, freaking blah. Where did you get all this no-speak from.

In the end you said absolutely nothing. I think this all came from Vol. 3, tracks 22, 45, 2 and 11 of the progressive language CD, “How to talk down to the proletariat without meaning anything ”? Subscript, this is designed to reinforce the fact that Plato’s citizens are not fit to think or rule themselves so the ruling class must do it for them.

Even that is not good enough for you. Out came the ingratiating, grandiose clap trap of;

<< Thank you for allowing me to contribute in a small way to your research >>.

OMG Foxy, that was so gushingly insipid it could cause a projectile vomit. But it is admirable that you saw fit to offer a little pearl from someone so intellectually superior? You are a real piece Foxy.

It does however suit your higher purpose and can be translated as, “thank you for giving me the opportunity to demonstrate my intellectual superiority by recognizing the unseen merits of your survey”.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Not sure to where directed but the elicited forum response was “bollocks”, with which I agree.

Your response was to once again find something totally irrelevant, out of context, with no comparative analysis, but to which you can assign your high moral/value proposition to make you feel like you actually said something.

You offered this gem << Imagine yourself - walking down the street with
your wife and you accuse her of being ashamed to be seen with you…That’s total bollocks >>. What on earth?

Do you ever read what you write or is it so perfect in its construct and meaning that it requires no further analysis?

This brings us nicely to your last masterpiece;

This is where assumptions, false premise, elitism, presumption, speaking for others, platitudinous high moral and intellectual superiority get bound into one magnificent piece of progressive rhetoric.

<< When you have done the survey, and contributed something to this discussion,
then you may be taken seriously. I may even condescend to reading your posts >>.

Firstly you have no idea whether or not I completed the survey do you? But that doesn’t stop you from using your false assumption as the basis for requiring me to ”qualify” for comment with your demand that I first complete the survey? You then superimpose your value judgment of “contribution” onto everyone else, implying that I won’t be taken seriously by them either.

Then you resume the role of speaking from the high moral ramparts and offer to condescend to read my posts if I’m a good boy and comply with your directives. Lovely Foxy, just lovely.

Foxy, you have never read anyone’s posts, you don’t “read”, you “feel”. This is evidenced by your rhetoric which has nothing to do with content, it is always about “feeling”.

The next time you hit the keyboard, consider if you are actually saying something or just feeling it. Either way you seem forever destined to rely on your rhetoric/platitude engine and a self referential network of similar borrowed opinion.

Have a nice weekend

Lol!, spindoc...have you misplaced the remote again?

Perhaps find a new hobby?

Dear spindoc,

Thank you for helping me to understand what
you're trying to say.
I am indeed flattered that you've spent so
much time and effort on me. Although -
I'm not sure that I deserve so much of your attention.

However, if I am everything that you say I am -
and what I post is all "bollocks," why on earth would
you bother to both read what I post or respond to
it?

(Just imagine if instead of taking my response
to, Is Mise, so seriously - you would have thought
that I was merely being facetious - and that the
two examples given to him of - "bollocks,"
were actually intended as - jokes).

Never mind.

I hope that you feel much better now that you've gotten
all of this off your chest.

Feel free to continue with your advice to me old chap.
I take it all very seriously - and feel that anything
that helps to improve our discussions is a good thing.
I've stated in the past - the art of
reasoned, intelligent arguments is a skill not easily
acquired. No one likes or supports an abusive, illogical
debater.

Keep up the good work.