Talk:Culture shock

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How to address dissonance in values and norms?[edit]

Swept in from the pub
Would the World Values Survey map be a relevant illustration?

In Respect sections and topics such as culture shock, differences in values might need to be addressed. Would parameters from the w:World Values Survey or other surveys be relevant in this case? /Yvwv (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have to be careful not to create stereotypes here. In the vast majority of countries, there are too many different groups to say that the country is traditional or not. Therefore, an attempt to categorize countries in this way may not be popular with some. Just a thought. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. One might be even more confused and culture shocked if the stereotypes are only true on a minority of people in a certain country. Philaweb (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) There are lots of ways to classify cultures on a spectrum, including individualism/collectivism, high-context/low-context, being/doing, and more. The image above gives two others. I think all of these terms are pretty abstract and technical, but sometimes they might give us hints about what would be useful to include in a "Respect" section. I've thought of trying to describe some of these differences in the Culture shock article, not sure how useful it would be. I guess we could also have a topic like Cultural differences. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abstract is the right word. It's a result of theoretically pre-defined parameters that might or might not apply to reality. As an example, Denmark is in the Secular-Rational Values end, even though Protestantism is the state church and about 75% are members of Folkekirken (The People's Church), though only few attend service on a regular basis. Tourists might be surprised by this paradox. Philaweb (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And some things just strike me as not seeming right about the chart (BTW, no offense, Yvwv). For example, Peru, the Philippines, Peru, and Iran are all shown in the same place. Do these countries really have so much in common? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Peru and the Philippines do have a common heritage from the Spanish Empire and the Catholic Church. And sometimes, cultures with no history in common end up with similar customs and values. To generalize the question: Should Wikivoyage make any statement at all about the norms and values in any specific country? / Yvwv (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think so, but only to a very limited extent. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Disclaimer: I actually use this kind of information at work.) I think this is really valuable information, but you have to bring it down to practicalities. IMO it's not so useful to say "They have survival values", but there is value in saying things like "They value taking care of their families, so you can show respect by asking after their family members" or "Don't be surprised if people boast about how much money they are earning".
As for where to put it, I usually think it would be more useful to put it in the country-level article, but then there's the question of what to use for the comparison point. For me, it's always "me vs whomever I'm trying to talk to", but more generally, I don't think that we want to have "everything vs American" in all the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree on practicality. The initial questions was: "How to adress dissonance in values and norms?". I guess the best we can do is not adress dissonance, but describe what the values and norms are, and then let the reader(s) do the math by themselves from their point of view (values and norms). Philaweb (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly agree with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In any case, this information should preferrably be written by people with broad on-site experience of these values. When it comes to the Nordic countries, I would consider to include the w:Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world as an illustration. /Yvwv (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would suggest excluding it and just describing those societies. I think a weird-looking map like that would just distract people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Ikan. If the reader knows nothing about the World Values Survey, the image does not make any sense in the context of a travel guide. Philaweb (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What does "broad on-site experience of these values" encompass? Philaweb (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose it means you should not repeat prejudices just because you have spent a week on the beach in the country in question. Perhaps Yvwv wants to elaborate. --LPfi (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That could be one definition. I found the wording ambiguous since "on-site" could also mean Wikivoyage. Philaweb (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]