https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

takes some getting used to and has an affect on the business environment. At this point, I do believe that someone can be just as effective in business in Scandinavia as other places like the U.S., but my first two years were difficult until I understood how to navigate these social norms. Mostly, this is to say that, even beyond immigration and paperwork, I don't think it's exactly simple for someone outside to move to Sweden to take advantage of these opportunities. I think opportunity is there, but it takes some adapting to things like Jante's Law.

Now, the reality is much more subtle. It's absolutely possible to introduce new ideas in these workplaces and have them valued, but I do find the process takes longer. Certain activities like eating together for lunch, having afternoon coffee together, or small talk before a meeting tend to go a long way in helping this, much farther than in an American workplace. I also find that there's a difference in directness that's hard to explain. When I say that the process for introducing ideas is more indirect, I don't mean that everyone there wants flowery language. However, I do end up speaking differently with my Scandinavian clients.

Anyway, these are just my opinions, so I don't want to make this appear as absolute. For me, it took about two years of living there before I felt comfortable navigating the environment and, certainly, I'm still not perfect.

I think this has its costs; humans are social and they need the social context. The state certainly can't deliver a social context on a limited budget care & support machine. (Example: Your grandmother will meet 100 different caregivers for home care in a year, if she has that. That's 100 strangers instead of having a personal relation.

That can be solved either with a more expensive consistent employment regime in elderly care, or care from family.)

French here. My grand pa is old and has caregivers (paid by his public health care + the local county) coming to his home every day, they're always the same 4-5 people.

It's not hard giving people a steady job instead of using disposable contractors.

In more vibrant economies these jobs are seen as largely unattractive and often as a stepping stone to becoming a nurse's aid, nurse, doctor, etc.

One of the major imported jobs in even closed societies like Japan is senior caregivers. Its hard and ugly work, and often thankless (how can a senior with dementia appreciate you?). Migrating to different jobs or eventual burn out is a real issue in this industry.

I'm not necessarily arguing that Sweden is a model society and all other countries should adopt our ways. What I'm arguing against is the idea (fairly common, at least in the US) that higher taxes and a more generous welfare state is always antithetical to individualism and the entrepreneurial spirit. It can be, certainly, but it is not necessarily so.

We in America are very individualistic (eg "I got mine, screw you!" because Freedom Markets™). Our elder care is terrible. Our nursing homes are bleak.

(A buddy worked as the CFO for a nursing home corporation. Told me the biggest thing he learned: Don't end up in a nursing home.)

Most nordic people would call this progress.

Perhaps its a little arrogant to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think its clear that reality is far from explained and selling people on the idea of a nihilistic existence that is meaningless may not be good for humanity, nor actually be accurate. Are we certain science has solved all major mysteries and our cosmology is pretty much close to perfect? How do we know we're not Newton, unable to see Einstein coming, for example? Maybe we can't ever know.

I'm not exactly sure where religion or spirituality fits in with the modern lifestyle, but I suspect it has a place still. As much as I like visiting nordic regions, the lack of smiles and cold attitudes really reflects something I consider wrong and off-putting especially as the son of European immigrants from a 'family' centered society and a liberal US citizen who certainly sees value in the collective, even if the electorate does not. I don't think evolution made us to be asocial, anti-family, anti-spiritual, anti-collective, etc and expect us to be satisfied with the end result (everyone in therapy and on pills for mood issues and complaining about lonliness and lack of meaning constantly).

From a personal perspective, adding a touch of meditation and some lightweight Buddhism and Eastern thought has really upped the quality of my life. Perhaps I'm engaging in an evangelical folly here but the facts do remain that the more atheistic a society the more you see depression and suicide appear, once we correct for depression caused by economic issues or warfare or political instability. Maybe this is an issue that'll solve itself somehow, but I do wonder if we ran too hard towards atheism/materialism, when we should have jogged more towards more liberal and 'lighter' religion, personal spiritual practice, or just plain-jane agnosticism.

That's certainly not an accurate description of secular viewpoints.

Anti-depressant use is also very high in Utah, a very religious US state. So religion or a lack thereof is not an obvious solution.

The challenge from scientific point of view with human traditions is that they are a mishmash of established techniques affecting measurable outcomes and superstition, and sometimes it's quite hard to tell from the point of view of an outsider which is which.

Correlation does not mean causality.

Saying atheism leads to anti-depressant use is like saying eating ice cream makes people drown. (Yes, I borrowed that from the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...).

"I think its clear that reality is far from explained and selling people on the idea of a nihilistic existence that is meaningless may not be good for humanity, nor actually be accurate."

Secularism has nothing to do with nihilism or meaninglessness. Nor lack of spirituality. Atheism does not mean anti-spirituality. It just means non-belief in any of the established deities.

I think you mean - people need spirituality. I have no objections to that.

" the lack of smiles and cold attitudes really reflects something I consider wrong and off-putting especially "

Now you are making judgements based on perceptions on different culture. I fail to see how that connects with anything else you said, except that you don't like unsmiling people. Yes, nordic people actually seem cold and distant to some due to the fact of manners being different. Two pairs of sisters meet - one is nordic, the other of a culture with more vivid body language. The nordic people say hi and stand apart, the other hug, kiss and coo. That does not mean the love between the nordic people is any less strong.

To exaggerate only a little bit, a typical french way of welcoming another person with hugs and kisses can be interpreted in the nordic countries as a sexual assault.

One of the facets of nordic culture is that I'm not really alone anywhere - not in the brutal survivalist sense anyway. If I actually need help, I'm 100% sure I will get it, no matter where in nordic countries I am and to whom I'm talking. This is perhaps one of the reasons the ties with the social safety net do not appear as exaggerated as else where - we don't need to assure each others that when we need help, someone will be there. It's expected as a basic custom and facet of nordic societies.

"I don't think evolution made us to be asocial, anti-family, anti-spiritual, anti-collective, et"

Um, where did that come from. We were discussing how nordic people are unfriendly secularists and now you are confusing it with lots of other things by way of associating it with the earlier comments. Yes, religion is conflated with communal activities is several places. Being atheist does not mean being anti-community or anti anything else, except that 1. you don't want to believe thousand year old fairy tales no more 2. you don't want to hand off political authority to third party wankers just because they've progressed in the power structure enabled by the said fairy tales.

I totally fail to see how current religions can provide us with any tenable long term solutions - we are in a dire need of better spiritual frameworks. I agree, Buddhism has many attractive aspects - but, also lots of dogma. The deeper western people actually dip into it the more obvious it becomes.

Meditation is cool. Also, it needs no metaphysical framework to function, just posture and breathing.

" the more atheistic a society the more you see depression and suicide appear, once we correct for depression caused by economic issues or warfare or political instability"

I would really like the references to that claim.

If we take the hypothetical claim as a fact that the more secular societies are more unhappy, that also correlates with the generic economic and educational status of the said society, as well as the relative increase of urban population versus rural. If we take blunt correlates then we might as well claim that increased wealthy urbanization causes unhappiness and atheism. But the problem is - without any sound theory to explain our findings we are no less the silly. Hunting for correlates in any statistics is one of the cargo cult methods of science and not very effective method of discovery.

Religions have intertwined themselves with all sorts of positive things like knitting societies and whatnot (as a crude example). Now, to denounce the deity of the religion and the old texts does not mean denouncing the knitting society. It just strips the old texts of their false eminence and cuts down the political authority of the priesthood if it's based purely on doctrinal concepts.

I can agree on one thing with you - if people meditated more the world would probably be a happier place.

http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-largest-antidepress...

Also, as the article states "It's difficult to say exactly what the data tell us.

Antidepressant use is not an accurate window into rates of depression. Instead, the popularity of antidepressants in a given country is the result of a complicated mix of depression rates, stigma, wealth, health coverage, and availability of treatment."

US seems to be leading the pack and from cross referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligio...

if we do bad statistics, we can conclude that since sweden has lower antidepressant use and higher secularity than US, religion actually causes psychiatric illness.

But what the data actually tells us is that it's pretty damn hard to pull any causality between secularism and antidepressant use.

Sort of suggests that following the collective, being an ant in a colony may have negative effects on intelligence over a few generations. Natures law: "What you don't use you lose." You don't need higher intelligence because so many are chipping in to compensate.

Then again, balance is a fickle thing.

Or "Hey this guy is pretty good at business, lets give him low taxes to reward him and keep him happy."

I think its difficult for successful people to see how much they're lifted up by everyday people in society doing their best to incentivize meritocracy and creating an even playing field where the smart people can succeed.

Lets remember, the idea of the meritorious succeeding is rare in society. Up until recently you had to be a non-woman, non-slave, and at the very least come from a wealthy or political family. Or perhaps sidestep this by having powerful political patrons but then still be under the gun of, say, the inquisition.

Also when we look at many of the enlightenment thinkers and supporters, we see a slew of milquetoast intellects and ordinary people fighting against the old order of theocracies, monarchs, and dictators. Why did the smart need them to build the society they needed to succeed in? Newton wasn't writing about the freedom of man, instead he was obsessed over his place in the kingdom of heaven and went a bit mad about non-violent coin counterfeiters, advocating for their death, and often delivering it using the power of his position in the mint.

I think there's an Ayn Rand sized fallacy hole that you're falling into here.

In most historical human societies, the way to "succeed" was to threaten to kill other people unless they gave you what you wanted.

A couple of immediate objections come to mind. First, "intelligence" is difficult to define or measure. Things like standardized IQ tests tend to come with an implicit agenda. Second, thinking instead about "innovation", history surely shows that most innovation happens when humans group together (in farming communities, cities etc).

It's true though that in recent history, cities are more associated with social atomization. Overall it seems like a very fuzzy and complicated issue.

I live in one of the kommuns with the very worst economy and the schools barely function. So the 100 carers thing is not because of the swedish psyche but because of the way healthcare is funded.

Your education prospects now depend on which school you go to, especially with blatant grade inflation. My friends are putting their kids in queue for elite elementary school the day after they are born. Even if you can make it to college the traditional route you'll have trouble finding an apartment and keeping your student benefits.

Healthcare is a complicated system of public funded private institutions that regularly and willingly violate the law on things like time before you get to see a specialist. I always used to like the Swedish healthcare system until I realized I've always visited the same doctors that I knew.

Unemployment benefits doesn't apply (or atleast appeal) to former students or short contract workers these days. You have to go the welfare office and even they have no problem denying you means. You'll probably won't have much job security anyways since you'll be hired as a contractor.

Housing, especially in Stockholm, is a mess that won't be solved anytime soon. It makes the effects of everything worse. Commute time, work-life balance, even the weather.

I honestly think Sweden is one of the best countries in the world, but it's not a good deal anymore. If you got established ten years ago and could go to school before rampant youth unemployment, got an apartment before housing prices skyrocketed, know which doctors to go to, get a stable job where it makes sense to join the union etc. then it's great. You can study at university for seven years, some of them abroad, work for a few years, go on paternity leave for the better part of a year, move abroad for some time, then come back to your stable job again, leave your employer and get hired back as a consultant and if you don't find work go on unemployment. All this while you make a workers salary in housing appreciation, take vacations three times a year and get to use your parent country house in the summers.

Bottom line is that increasingly only the rich can afford to take advantage of the social safety net these days and I think it's starting to show even with things like startups. It was apparent very early that companies like Spotify, Klarna, Mojang etc. would be successful. I don't see many of these types of early successes anymore (but that might be my own ignorance of course).

There's increasingly nothing special about Sweden.

If the government can provide effective healthcare that should at least in theory be a great boon to social mobility and entrepreneurship as that means people can much more easily move to a new job. Tying healthcare to employers is antithetical to that.

I suspect the real issue doing that in the US is simply because it's so varied. You've got several individual demographics within America that are bigger than Sweden's entire population - all with different cultures and even histories. Having a more homogeneous culture is advantageous in that respect. Maybe it's not surprising that SK has seen similar results.

However, it is fair to say that when the system was "designed", (largely in the early and mid 20th century), Sweden was much more ethnically homogeneous than it is today. There might be something to the notion that people are much more willing to accept a generous welfare state if they know the beneficiaries are from the same ethnic group. It's shameful, but that's humanity for you.

It's disappointing and quite upsetting to me... It's clear that they are using a (slightly) more socially acceptable form of racism. After all, are they saying, for eg, education can't work because of all the Irish or German or Asians? Is it because of all the Canadians living off the US government?

Who exactly are these diverse types that are ensuring that particular failure?

I was admittedly too lazy to check the values in Sweden vs elsewhere, just wanted to add to your comment that what values people endorse (or at least overtly report to endorse) in various countries and regions of the world is not unknown at all and it is not hard to look up data from reputable sources. How people act upon the values they report (if at all), is a different matter, of course.

In addition, this was an explicitly stated goal in the creation of the Swedish welfare state. The Social Democratic "philosophy" underlying it goes by the name of "Folkhemmet"[1], "the people's home". The idea is that in order to progress to a more modern economy, the state should take over the more traditional support systems previously provided by family/community/religion/etc. when it comes to things like healthcare, education and taking care of the poor.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhemmet

Folkhemmet has German roots (Volksgemeinschaft) and can be traced back to the ideas of Bismarck[1]. It was a social reform. One can compare it to FDRs "New Deal". It is in this context it makes sense. It does not make sense to explain what "we [Swedes] believe" or "the Swedish mindset". You're basically equating social democratic policy from 1930-1970(ish) with being Swedish. There are a lot of people living in Sweden who do not subscribe to these ideas (myself included).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Social_legis...

I live in Japan now, and while it's seen as a collective society, it's clear so much more of left to families to deal with themselves rather than society as a whole.

Sweden has broader social programs and is more individualistic, and Japan has weaker social programs and is more communal. It shows how the US one dimensional view of left/right isnt all there is to it.

Also, I though the idea of Lagom was that one should not pursue material wealth and success above what is "good enough".