Question: Why does having people with different cultures cause a problem on the ISS?
About the article "International Space Station", section "Stress".

Candidate passages:
Objections and counterarguments.
What caused the First Cause?One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require any causes.
Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.
The problem with arguing for the First Cause's exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.
Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via "a posteriori" (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience.
David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true "a priori".
However, as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.
Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large.
In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience. 
There has been considerable evidence that psychosocial stressors are among the most important impediments to optimal crew morale and performance.
Cosmonaut Valery Ryumin, wrote in his journal during a particularly difficult period onboard the Salyut 6 space station: “All the conditions necessary for murder are met if you shut two men in a cabin measuring 18 feet by 20 and leave them together for two months.”NASA's interest in psychological stress caused by space travel, initially studied when their manned missions began, was rekindled when astronauts joined cosmonauts on the Russian space station Mir.
Common sources of stress in early American missions included maintaining high performance while under public scrutiny, as well as isolation from peers and family.
The latter is still often a cause of stress on the ISS, such as when the mother of NASA Astronaut Daniel Tani died in a car accident, and when Michael Fincke was forced to miss the birth of his second child.
A study of the longest spaceflight concluded that the first three weeks represent a critical period where attention is adversely affected because of the demand to adjust to the extreme change of environment.
While Skylab's 3 crews remained one, two, and three months respectively, long term crews on Salyut 6, Salyut 7, and the ISS last about five to six months while MIR's expeditions often lasted longer.
The ISS working environment includes further stress caused by living and working in cramped conditions with people from very different cultures who speak a different language.
First generation space stations had crews who spoke a single language, while second and third-generation stations have crew from many cultures who speak many languages.
The ISS is unique because visitors are not classed automatically into 'host' or 'guest' categories as with previous stations and spacecraft, and may not suffer from feelings of isolation in the same way.
Crew members with a military pilot background and those with an academic science background or teachers and politicians may have problems understanding each other's jargon and worldview.
There is a social stigma that school shootings are directly associated with mental illness; however, this is the exception rather than the norm.
Only about 4% of all gun violence crimes are committed by the mentally ill.
It is more so that the media has exploited when a shooter has mental illness, as if this is the sole cause of their actions.
It can indeed be a cause, and does occasionally have a great deal to do with why these people committed such heinous crimes, but it is rarely the standalone reason.
There is no illness that is common among all the perpetrators of these crimes; therefore, it cannot be generalized that mental illness leads to mass shootings.
The exploitation in the media leads to a negative connotation of mental illness, which can cause people to not want to seek treatment.
This furthers the stigma against people with mental illness.
People have a tendency to attribute the cause of school shootings on the behavior of the person rather than the environment, which is known as the fundamental attribution error.
It is most likely a combination of both, because behavior does play a huge role in the people who commit these crimes, but it also stems from cultural issues.
It also has to do with the accessibility of guns or violent culture, however this would require change on an entire nation's part rather than just blaming it on a person's mental illness, so people often tend to lean towards the latter.
McGinty and colleagues conducted a study to show that people tend to associate the violence of these shootings with mental illness, while ignoring the fact that there are usually other factors that are more pressing.
Nearly 2,000 participants read a news piece on a shooting in which the shooter is diagnosed as having a mental illness and who used high capacity magazines.
One group read an article that presented only the facts of the case.
A different group read an article about the same shooting, but in it the author advocated for gun restrictions for people with mental illness.
Another group read about the shooting in an article that suggested the proposal to ban large-capacity magazines, which acted to advocate that shootings could stem from a societal problem rather than an individual problem.
The control group did not read anything.
Participants were then all asked to fill out a questionnaire asking about their views on gun control and whether they thought there should be restrictions on high capacity magazines.
71% of the control group thought that gun restrictions should be applied to people with mental illness, and nearly 80% of participants who read the articles agreed.
Despite the fact that the article exposed the readers to both the mental illness of the shooter, and the fact that the shooter used high-capacity magazines, participants advocated more for gun restrictions on people with mental illness rather than bans on high-capacity magazines.
This suggests that people believe mental illness is the culprit for school shootings in lieu of the accessibility of guns or other environmental factors.
This causes people to associate mental illness with violence, which is not only a false generalization, but it also does nothing to solve the problem at hand.
It was shown that people who have a mental illness are six times more likely to be the victim of a homicide than a person without a mental illness, but this is not typically broadcast in the media. 
One school of thought compares scientific knowledge to the mythology of other cultures, arguing that it is merely our society's set of myths based on our society's assumptions.
For support, Paul Feyerabend's comments in "Against Method" that "The similarities between science and myth are indeed astonishing" and "First-world science is one science among many" (from the introduction to the Chinese edition) are sometimes cited, although it is not clear if Feyerabend meant them to be taken entirely seriously.
The Strong program in the sociology of science is (in the words of founder David Bloor) "impartial with respect to truth and falsity".
Elsewhere, Bloor and Barry Barnes have said "For the relativist as us there is no sense attached to the idea that some standards or beliefs are really rational as distinct from merely locally accepted as such."
In France, Bruno Latour has claimed that "Since the settlement of a controversy is the "cause" of Nature's representation, not the consequence, we can never use the outcome -Nature- to explain how and why a controversy has been settled.
"Yves Winkin, a Belgian professor of communications, responded to a popular trial in which two witnesses gave contradicting testimony by telling the newspaper "Le Soir" that "There is no transcendent truth.
[...] It is not surprising that these two people, representing two very different professional universes, should each set forth a different truth.
Having said that, I think that, in this context of public responsibility, the commission can only proceed as it does.
"The philosopher of science Gérard Fourez wrote in that "What one generally calls a fact is an interpretation of a situation that no one, at least for the moment, wants to call into question.
"British archaeologist Roger Anyon told the "New York Times" that "science is just one of many ways of knowing the world...
The Zuni's world view is just as valid as the archeological viewpoint of what prehistory is about."
The Meaning Maintenance Model (MMM) was initially introduced as a comprehensive motivational theory that claimed to subsume TMT, with alternative explanations for TMT findings.
Essentially, it posits that people automatically give meaning to things, and when those meanings are somehow disrupted, it causes anxiety.
In response, people concentrate on "meaning maintenance to reestablish their sense of symbolic unity" and that such "meaning maintenance often involves the compensatory reaffirmation of alternative meaning structures".
These meanings, among other things, should "provide a basis for prediction and control of our...environments, help to cope with tragedy and trauma...and the symbolic cheating of death via adherence to the enduring values that these cultures provide".TMT theorists argue that MMM cannot describe why different sets of meaning are preferred for a symbol by different people, and that while they may exist, "different [(i.e., more concrete)] types of meaning have different psychological functions".
For example, MMM theorists argue that all types of meaning are basically equal, and yet one could not compare the likelihood of defensive responses resulting from exposure to a deck of cards containing black hearts with something like the September 11 attacks.
TMT theorists argue, essentially, that unless something is an important element of a person’s anxiety-buffering worldview or self-esteem, it will not require broad meaning maintenance.
In sum, TMT theorists believe that MMM cannot accurately claim to be an alternative to TMT because it does not seem to be able to explain the current breadth of TMT evidence.
As an example, TMT theorists assert that mortality salience would not be a threat to meaning, since our eventual demise is a necessary condition of life.
Therefore, it should not cause an individual to engage in general meaning maintenance.
MMM also makes no attempt to explain why threatening meaning increases DTA.