I think the individualist streak in American culture is better shown by people being unwilling to seek help from friends/family. I might call an unwillingness to help others (assuming one can afford to do so) selfishness -- not individualism. But what I have seen in American is, as you said, individualism: People are prideful and want to create wealth without help.
An interesting clarification: People will more readily accept help from strangers -- e.g. a Kickstarter campaign, bank loan, or VC investment doesn't diminish one's pride in the way that the same support from someone's parents might.
There's talk elsewhere in this article's comments here about the "killer feature" that these Indian Americans have. I would argue that the true killer feature is not even access to zero-interest capital. It's a culture that actively fights against pride and individualism.
There are surely tradeoffs, but it's hard to deny the power that can come from children and adults alike all looking to family for help... and seeing that help not as something which diminishes their power but rather as something that bolsters it.
I don't think it's about pride at all. I think it's about face (something most Americans don't even have a word for, but which is very relevant in this case.)
Americans don't want to give face to anyone, ever. They don't want anyone to have social power over them. When an individual loans you money—or, even worse, gifts you money—you're giving them a ton of face in exchange. Americans find that idea horrifying. It's like signing up for indentured servitude, except—since it's a social rather than legal obligation—you can't even get out of it by declaring bankruptcy! (See: the way "favours" are portrayed in The Godfather movies, for an image of the American mindset on what owing someone a favour / being in someone's debt is like.)
Bank loans and VC investments are better precisely because they're legal rather than social obligations, so you can get out of them (or, say, sell them off to someone else along with the business.) And Kickstarter is better because no single individual is responsible for enough of the loan to actually attain much social-obligatory power over you in exchange. You're maybe beholden to your Kickstarter backers as a class, but you aren't scared to talk to any individual one of them for thought of what they might ask of you.
Maybe not that extreme, but yeah, it's too easy to get guilted into something because you've become socially indebted by something large.
It's not even about being able to get out of it, like you mention afterwards with a legal exchange, it's about the exchange being forced to continue out of a mixture of guilt, politeness, and social pressure in general, simply because you don't want to accidentally kill the personal relationship.
It's not just practicing individualism, but insisting on it. People don't help others partly because they tell themselves that the person needs to make their own way. It is ultimately a justification for selfishness, but the justification is individualism. And I suspect many people who would otherwise not be too proud to ask for help still won't because they perceive that this is a prominent idea in American culture.
> An interesting clarification: People will more readily accept help from strangers -- e.g. a Kickstarter campaign, bank loan, or VC investment doesn't diminish one's pride in the way that the same support from someone's parents might.
I think that goes back to the same point. Those routes are branded as entrepreneurship, which is like +10 individualism points. If I asked my rich uncle for a loan, he (and many other people) would perceive this as dependency and therefore vaguely shameful. If I took out a bank loan, even though it's technically the same action, those same people would perceive it as an admirable show of entrepreneurial initiative.
When you ask your rich uncle for a loan, it's hard for both him and you to really know whether it's being given because he believes in you, or because there is perceived to be an obligation. And where there is an obligation to give loans/favors just based on familial ties, it's a slippery slope to a culture of nepotism and corruption where your name matters more than your skills and accomplishments.
I'm not saying that relatives shouldn't help each other, but perhaps it's not such a bad thing that people seek out other avenues first in non-emergency situations. It's a delicate balance to be sure.
Western Europe in the last 1000 years or so has been a very unusual place... one aspect of which is having nuclear families not extended ones. Because (crudely speaking) the catholic church wished to diminish alternative power structures, such as clans. This led to an unusually open society, which had many benefits... with generally higher levels of trust among strangers.
But it has some costs, too. Like not having tight connections for bootstrapping motels in a foreign land.
Spontaneously:
* South America appeared to be more catholic than any Western European or US-American place I've visited, but family and extended family are still a big thing.
* Calvinists seem to be much more "open" than catholics to me.
* Damn, I want the secret recipe that lets me set a policy and enforce it in vast areas (at times without any reliable messenger system) and across many generations, even if my successor comes from a different faction within the catholic church.
The peripheral was different, e.g. Scotland had strong clans until they got kicked out (to Ulster, and thence Appalachia...). And Spain wasn't even christian at this point in time.
That the church did it is less clear, I agree. There are economic arguments too. I guess I'm persuaded that things like suppressing cousin marriage had something to do with it. I'm certainly not suggesting that there's some essential magic attached to the pope! It was core europe that invented Protestantism too... at the same time as Cortez & co were taking the reconquistia to the Incas, with the pope's blessing but a very different culture.
The recipe for setting and enforcing a policy over vast areas of time and space is incentive compatibility. It is always in the interest of one powerful political group to make coordinated action against it more difficult. The Catholic Church had a strong incentive to break up extended kin groups and they did. It was possible to get dispensations for royalty and the peasantry mostly did whatever it wanted. Keeping up the same policy for over a thousand years was enough to make Western Europe and especially Northwestern Europe uniquely atomised in human history.
If you want an academic source look below. Frost basically took what blogger hbdchick had been writing about for years, did a review article on it and didn’t cite her. http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/
The Hajnal Line and Gene-Culture Coevolution in Northwest Europe Peter Frost
If you want to know more about the policies of the Catholic Church on marriage of relatives the Wikipedia article on cousin marriage is quite good and well referenced if you want to go from there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage
On the Church banning marrying relatives
> First and second cousin marriages were then banned at the Council of Agde in AD 506, though dispensations sometimes continued to be granted. By the 11th century, with the adoption of the so-called canon-law method of computing consanguinity, these proscriptions had been extended even to sixth cousins, including by marriage. But due to the many resulting difficulties in reckoning who was related to whom, they were relaxed back to third cousins at the Fourth Lateran Council in AD 1215. Pope Benedict XV reduced this to second cousins in 1917,[22] and finally, the current law was enacted in 1983.
The Church’s justification for banning cousin marriage has no scriptural basis. If St. Augustine's justification for banning relatives from marrying isn’t evidence in favour of what I wrote I don’t know what is.
> Whatever the reasons, written justifications for such bans had been advanced by St. Augustine by the fifth century. "It is very reasonable and just", he wrote, "that one man should not himself sustain many relationships, but that various relationships should be distributed among several, and thus serve to bind together the greatest number in the same social interests".
As to “speculative, just so, white-supremacist” Science is generally built on a base of speculation, which researchers then attempt to disprove. Hypothesis falsification and all that. Just so stories is a common insult thrown against evolutionary psychology researchers but far from universally justified. Given the high degree of fit between the model Snow proposes and the evidence it certainly isn’t justified here.
If it's not verifiable even in principle, it's useless from a scientific perspective. And it just happens to be a theory telling white people why they're genetically disposed to morally superiority, which is highly suspicious, coming from a white guy.
> Given the high degree of fit between the model Snow proposes and the evidence it certainly isn’t justified here.
You're not taking the enormous hypothesis space into account. This is not a compelling fit, by any means.
We’re learning more and more about the genetic underpinnings of personality traits and getting betterat extracting ancient DNA. It’s also trivial to compute indices of relatedness between two people if you have either a full genotype or just SNPs. If the personality traits associated with WEIRD populations are highly correlated with declines in inbreeding it’s not proof of the hypothesis but it makes it more likely. We don’t have proof outside of Math anyway, Science is about more or less likely.
If you want to learn more about Evolutionary Psychology the Oxford Handbook is excellent and it’s on libgen.io. The introduction is only about 60 pages and addresses the most common and uncommon criticisms ably.
If you think that being unusually individualistic and unfamilistic is morally superior that’s a personal preference you are of course free to indulge.
The Origins of Political Order by Francis Fukuyama, which has a pretty long section about how the Catholic Church in medieval Europe worked really hard to break up the power of clans. (It is one reason why they forced priests to become celebate.)
Along the same lines see History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church by Henry Lea.
South America's conversion to Catholicism came long after this period was largely over.
Family & extended family in Western Europe and the US is nothing like it is in some other places in the world. Do you -- and 50 other descendents -- take a plane trip every year to go to your grandfather's grave 1,000 miles away to pray to him on the anniversary of the day he died for good luck? We do that here.
Prioritize the targeting of clan leaders?
> This led to an unusually open society, which had many benefits... with generally higher levels of trust among strangers.
It's interesting that you're portraying the openness of European society in a strongly positive light, given the high levels of abject loneliness prevalent primarily in the west.
Communal living has been a staple for much of human existence, the level of isolation most people in western Europe and North America (and now, much of east Asia) face is a direct result of European "openness" (which spread through east Asia via the British originally, and destabilization + American media later).
The biggest risk to the future of the West is the lack of strong families. That's where India, above all others, shines.
I agree that the extreme individualist end of the spectrum has downsides, for sure. Suicide rates make horrifying reading. But I think you can argue it's part of what made the west successful -- in HN terms, being forced to learn to deal with strangers, a lot, set you up to scale well.
Isn't the flip side of being on the other end of this scale -- tight happy families, or clans, maybe even castes -- something close to nepotism? Stagnation because once you've employed all your nephews then you can't grow, who would you trust?
Of course there are a million other factors etc too... anyway.
Literally the biggest group embracing individualism from my perspective are secular white people and mainstream protestants.
No one here is making the argument that Catholicism cannot exist alongside close extended families, so your objection to the argument that is being made falls completely flat.
But it's not true, we have data. The quite readable book on this is Laslett, "The World We Have Lost". https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1362413/Peter-La...
Oh please... Indian Catholic families still act in extended structures. I mean, three of my uncles are priests and one is a bishop. We've been Christian for thousands of years. We're still part of an overbearing, very close, very extended Indian family.
The ruining of European culture can be traced solely back to issues in European culture. Let's stop blaming the church for things that Europe brought upon itself.
Claiming that christianity always and everywhere does this would be pretty obviously wrong, and I did not say this. And indeed even within europe today, catholic-ness is anti-correlated with this kind of "openness" -- because the core relevant for this has long since gone protestant or atheist.
I hold this claim weakly. There are other arguments for what happened. But regardless of why, my main point was that Europe (and especially a core area) was an outlier on this universalist/clannish scale. And that both ends have advantages, depending on the situation.
I think a better explanation is the Protestant reformation weakened the idea that any person should subjugate their own personal individual desires for the greater good, with its emphasis on an individual quest for truth, an idea which has now permeated western culture. This makes sense with what I've experienced of non-European Catholicism, which mostly just finds Protestantism bizzare and confusing.
And? The people running the catholic church around 1000 AD were not running the catholic church in Latin America in 1500 AD.
LOL
And our families are, cross-culturally, unusually small. I talk to my parents every few weeks. Not so much my aunts and uncles. I have a few cousins who I see every fifth Christmas or so, and anyone more distant than that may as well be unrelated. This seems to be common within American culture, but it leads to weak social networks - unless you go to the right college and can network there.
Generally my American friends and family never ask for money to fund good ideas. The people asking for money are people who are asking me to throw money at things that won't produce more money(i.e. they don't have a plan for spending it wisely, have shown poor financial judgement in the past, etc).
My friend and his wife just had one of their cars stop working and they both need cars to make money. They are in debt and need to work. There's no way my friend will ask, but I will probably find a way to help them. My niece has no problem hitting up my parents for money for her latest crazy investment scheme after demonstrating several poor choices and a lack of business and financial judgement.
I agree with the individualist streak, but the second part is pretty much untrue of anyone I've met in the upper plain states. Helping to bootstrap you friends and family is part of the culture.
I think the true killer app is family cooperation as a unit in conjunction with a deep network of relatives. My father built his business with the help of his parents, his aunt, and two other cousins who lent him money. Without their help, he couldn't have built the business as fast and as big as he did. His brother also worked for him a bit as well as some of the cousins when he was building his first shop. My mother helped him and once she had me and my brother stayed at home and took care fo the home front even though she had a masters degree. And it appears his generation along with my mothers was the last hurrah of big family ties and help as everyone in my generation up and left. I have no cousins, uncles or aunts who are close. They all did their own thing, went to school and moved away. I see them from time to time, maybe once or twice a year and that's it. Hell, even my mother has all sorts of stories about how here massive Irish family (grandma was one of 12 kids) pulled together to help each other with everything.
Contrast that with my Guyanese friend who has a seemingly never ending supply of helpful family members all in the same neighborhood. His father built himself a small real estate empire of about a dozen rental properties and most of his generation are college educated. His father started out doing handyman and light construction work with his brothers. They all chipped in and worked. Some even had a day job and came to the properties at night to work on them. One by one they fixed and flipped homes using money and labor they pooled together. Then they started buying, fixing and renting. They acted as a small family army, cooperatively building each others future.
The American family has been here long enough to thin and die whereas these foreign families are still "fresh" to America and working hard to make a good life. But they too will one day suffer the same fate. Subsequent generations won't have to work as hard as they are already comfortable. Little by little they will spread out, move away, and their once mighty army is no more. From my perspective as a true 3rd gen American (all G-Grandparents came from Europe around the same time) is that by the third generation, there are no more cultural roots. And family is culture so family dissolves as well. My mother and father were the last to really care and my father was very meh about his Polish heritage. My mother was adamant, keeping traditions alive for as long as possible but the local family thinned out as the rest moved away. She is probably the last to really care about family and cultural roots which bound the early immigrants, and their children.
Informal immigrant aid networks are generally wider than "close friends and relatives" - they extend to distant cousins and friends-of-friends. For example, in this article the relevant quote is “If you are a Patel, lease a hotel” - Patels being a relatively broad caste, and a surname representing about 10% of all Indian-Americans, not a "family" in the American sense.
For a concrete example of how this works in the Middle Eastern Jewish community, and historically in the Ashkenazi immigrant Jewish community:
Instead of "hey uncle, I hear you have $50K lying around, could you loan me some?" it's "hello second cousin once removed, my uncle got me in touch with you - I hear you've got $50K lying around?" You're generally a step or two removed from the direct source of money. The act of the intermediary is a one-time intervention and said interaction is usually closed out with a direct thanks or a gift or both, rather than being an ongoing professional relationship. If the venture doesn't succeed you'll have an awkward relationship with the two-hops-removed acquaintance, and the one-hop-removed intermediary will know about it and be less likely to recommend you to others for credit, but real social consequences that extend to direct friends and relatives are reserved for those who are considered to have acted maliciously or irresponsibly (e.g. if it's clear you've blown the money on hookers and blackjack, you and possibly your children will be ostracized).
Search for "credit" in this article on immigrant enclaves for some examples of communities with these kinds of social structures: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/433f/567bd158d95f0c2611489d... (This also mentions different informal lending structures than the ones that I'm familiar with personally - instances in Korean and Latino communities of "lending circles" i.e. collective lending among peers, rather than from individual community eminences.)
Plus, its one thing to "invest" in someone buying an asset, like a house/motel/gas station/CNC mill/whatever, vs loaning someone money to start a graphics art business where the money is going to basically pay "salary" and once its spent there isn't anything left to sell when the business fails.
Although, the one common thing I've seen a couple times, is an uncle/whatever paying for a college or a trade (like nursing) school under the "teach a man to fish" theory.
https://medium.com/@timconneally/companies-started-by-loans-...
After Musk became successful, his father even took credit for helping him – to such a degree that it’s listed as fact in Elon’s Wikipedia entry. “One thing he claims is he gave us a whole bunch of money to start, my brother and I, to start up our first company [Zip2, which provided online city guides to newspapers]. This is not true,” Musk says. “He was irrelevant. He paid nothing for college. My brother and I paid for college through scholarships, loans and working two jobs simultaneously. The funding we raised for our first company came from a small group of random angel investors in Silicon Valley.”"
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/elon-m...
I'd rather extend a monetary gift without any expectation of repayment.
Any money-related issue is bound to sour relations with your family sooner or later. Business partners that fall out can go their separate ways, but when your sister-in-law cheats her siblings out of their shares of the estate--because she opened the account for her Mom, and it was a joint account, just in case something happened to her--that brews some resentment.
Loans make you involved in the borrower's business, and when things so bad, you need to be able to exercise all your options. Your lazy brother-in-law probably isn't going to prioritize making the loan payment to you over buying a new snowblower, or whatever other toy. Your sleazy brother-in-law might just default, claim your loan was actually a gift, and all but dare you to sue him. So it isn't just that there is a taboo against lending, but there is an insufficiently strong tradition of honoring personal commitments and sacrificing of one's self for the sake of the family.
If they don't pay it back, you have the perfect excuse to never loan them any more.
This is true. I think we got it from the British.
Hamlet: Act 1, scene 3:
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry"
The typical means to wealth is spending below one's means and investing the rest.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/style/fire-financial-inde...
And there's the book "The Millionaire Next Door" which shows that 85% of American millionaires are self-made, usually through spending below one's means and investing the rest.
As for the article, the people in it seem to need to continue living a frugal lifestyle after early retirement, so they aren't exactly wealthy. Financially independent, yes, but not wealthy.
The book is pretty cheap (!) and well worth a read if you're interested it becoming financially independent. There are lots of financial advice books, this is one of the better ones, and the advice is straightforward. It doesn't involve learning option trading or real estate hacks.
It's less taboo than years of hearing stories of ended family relationships where money was loaned and then abused, mishandled, wasted, etc without any intention of paying it back. I've heard these types of stories my entire life.
For friends and extended family, I agree. However, most people I know have borrowed from their parents for things like their first car or the downpayment on their first house if they need to. Is that not normal?
Interesting. Never heard of this before. Why do you think it is so (the taboo)? (I read some replies to your comment below, just want to see if you think something different).
Hotels aren’t a Business that requires immigrant labor because it’s undesirable —- it’s a business that needs capital and SMB are starved of capital.
Many Americans come from a cultural background where there is shame involved in talking about money and doing business with family, and prefer dealing with institutions.
The problem is a lot of those business aren’t vetted. How do you know if anyone’s going to eat at Uncle Ned’s crab shack?
These motels are more like new franchises than a startup. They’ve already been partly de-risked.
Paul Allen and Gates had saved up a small amount of money from contract work. Together they provided all of Microsoft's seed capital. They had customers for Microsoft essentially from the start of the business (MITS being the first), making it profitable nearly from day one.
Gary Kildall wrote CP/M in 1974, a year before Gates formed Microsoft.
http://www.autonews.com/article/19960626/ANA/606260830/1975-...
And how much credence would IBM give a mom (who had little knowledge of computers and software) who suggested checking out her son?
Lastly, the accounts of her advising IBM to use her son's company are not verifiable.
IBM went to Gary Kildall first.
There are plenty of American families who have relations who could easily help bootstrap a profitable small business in the way described here. It just doesn't happen that way very often.
Instead the typical means to wealth is inheritance or luck of birth providing access to investment capital (not loans) and business connections. For every WhatsApp there's a dozen or more Microsofts and Facebooks (Gates and Zuckerberg both benefitted from the immense social and financial capital their families could provide).