From: fbashk@nuscc.nus.sg (Sudhir H Kale (DR))
Newsgroups: alt.psychology.personality
Subject: culture, national character and personality
Date: 7 Jan 93 05:27:19 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Several people, including Jon Noring have written to me about my earlier
post.  Here's some more elaboration.  I have not posted the article to
other groups.  I am a neophyte to the net, and don't even yet know how
to post anonymously.  Anyway, here's some clarification.

The national culture approach is very old.  Aristotle (330 B.C.) in Politika
looked at the different ways in which Greek States were run, and related
it to the personality and other characteristics of the in habitants.
In 1380 Aby Khaldun in North Africa looked at the differences between
nomadic and sedentary societies , analyzing differences in mentality, social
and political behavior, architecture, etc.  Frederic Le Play in France (1850)
and Wilhelm Wundt in Germany (1910) present a comparative analysis across
countries of language, myth, morals, religion, etc.

During and after world war II, the U.S. Government called upon
anthorpologists like Benedict, Geoffrey, Gorer, and Mead to understand
the psyche of its enemies. Thus National Character came into vogue. This was
often defined as modal personality of a nation's inhabitants.

Multidimensional frameworks for distinguishing social systems across various
national cultures have been proposed by Parsons (1951), Parsons and Shils
(1951), Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), Douglas (1970), and more recently
by Hofstede.  Jon, to your specific question, there is a lot of literature
alluding to the fact that the paternalistic orientation and hierarchical
conditioning of the German society gives rise to the issues you discussed.
I will briefly discuss Hofstede's four dimensions of culture and relate
them to MBTI.  These are: power distance (the degree to which a society
tolerates differences in power, status, and wealth among its inhabitants). 
Large power distance societies are Phillipines, France, India.  Small
power distance societies are Norway, Sweden, Denmark. (2) Uncertainty 
Avoidance: a society's level of tolerance for the uncertainty and
ambiguity inherent in daily life. Strong uncertainty avoidance societies
are Greece, Portugal, Belgium, weak--Denmark, Jamaica, Sweden. (3)
Individualism: the degree to which an individual bonds with his/her fellow
individuals (by way of extended family, clan, or tribe).  Individualistic
countries are U.S., U.K., etc.  Collective: Pakistan, Japan, India. (4)
Masculinity: degree to which socieities accept stereotypically male values
(bigger is better, more is merrier, admiring achievement, etc), or
female values (caring for the underdog and the environment, valuing
harmony, small is beautiful, etc).  Masculine countries: Greece,
Italy, Brazil; feminine: Scandinavian countries.

Now I will speculate relating MBTI dimensions to the cultural dimensions:
Masculinity: STJ, Uncertainty Avoidance: S/N and J/P; Power Distance: TJ,
Individualism: E/I and T/F.  Let me illustrate: a country with strong
uncertainty avoidance will have a modal personality of sensing judgers and
vice versa. A feminine countries may have more intuitive feelers, collective
societies will have more feelers (as opposed to thinkers).  I have 
over-generalized here, but the logic has been better developed in my 
1992 Journal of International Business Studies article.

In summation, it is possible to relate national culture to MBTI (or for
that matter to other personality systems).  Both can be used for
analyzing markets (someone's query on this group).  We are, however,
relating micro measures to macro measures, and such associations tend
to be often methodologically flawed.  Though there are empirical
difficulties in such type of research, from a substantive standpoint
(which should appeal to the N's reading this), such associations
tend to be very enlightening.
 
Xref: sparky alt.psychology.personality:399 rec.arts.startrek.current:22359