I have enjoyed this new contribution from Ru very much. Also, I was reading your dialogue with @roleerob with great interest:)

What you say about taking risks and the typology you associate with it, of course, encourages me to think about the construction of cultural characteristics of a nation. I tend to put any quality attributed to people under a constructivist perspective, because people per se tend to seek identification.

How to identify a cultural heritage has to do with historiography and the religion from which we come. Christian work ethics has certainly shaped the much quoted Prussian view of work of us Germans. Broken down to the individual human being, however, I think the richness of facets is much greater than if one collectively considers a nation. Even among the Japanese, who are commonly said to have a higher loyalty to the group than to us Europeans, probably only those who live in the conviction and identification that the common good is above the welfare of the individual are so convinced. Others who question these beliefs and consciously examine the construction may think differently.

While beliefs may still produce strong constructions, I think capitalism has the same influence on all nations in terms of economies and business. Metropolises influence people's behaviour through their own structure: roads, transport routes, buildings, transshipment ports, technology, etc. The morning and evening traffic jams in Los Angeles, for example, hardly give workers a chance to behave differently. In Jerusalem, Rome, Sofia and Berlin, commercial transactions, bookkeeping and contracts are made on the basis of the same principles. Airports are managed in the same way around the world.

What I want to say is that the structures we have created for our human coexistence have a great influence. The phrase "too big to fail" may well signify this.

The political decisions of nations, if you ask me, are often determined by strong individuals who feel and act against the mainstream. Perhaps five percent of a population are able to break away from their prevailing constructivist convictions and offer new narratives that appear innovative.

For me it is like this: the collective beliefs such as "he who does not work shall not eat" or "idleness is the beginning of all vice" contain very contradictory views. I know you are also inclined to see both aspects of a statement: The true in it and the problematic.

I recently had a fresh parent couple, an Asian and a Dutchman. The woman said to her man that she found that he would intervene too quickly in a situation concerning the one-year-old child and his interactions with other babies. I had once read that Asian mothers intervene much less quickly than European mothers and so I offered this construction to the couple.

It is said that Asian mothers let a situation go as long as they don't see any real danger. But what "danger" actually means to one does not mean to the other. When toddlers throw sand in a sandbox, a German mother may quickly intervene and tell her child that one should not do such a thing, while an Asian mother only intervenes when a child starts crying. The one tends to avoid a danger, the other goes with it. I prefer to go with the flow and observe the outcome of a situation rather than to intervene too quickly. Mostly, nothing harmful happens while children explore their environment. Avoidance is connected to the unwillingness to have to deal with harm (crying or injured children).

There is an example of a Maasai mother who, in order to settle the dispute between her two children over a piece of bread, breaks the piece of bread in two and hands it to the older of the two children. This child looks at both pieces in his hand and then hands one over to his younger sibling.

A European mothers does not do that. She breaks the bread and gives it to the children herself. This novelty of enabling children to leave a decision that they can make at the age of three or four to their children is evidence of a way that we Europeans do not know. This may then be traced back to the aspect of "power distance", but then I see that with a score of 35 for the Germans this statement cannot be true. The authority that decides how the pieces of bread are distributed, from above, testifies to an inherent habit of regulating things from above and contradicts the score value.

While one believes that we Germans are a Power Distance people, I would say that my perception tells me something different when I am in conversations with friends and acquaintances or colleagues. There is often a demand for a "strong hand", an expression that was coined in the early 2000s by our SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, as much as my memory does not deceive me. The hierarchies in many public institutions are still strong and the individualist would wither there miserably. So it is probably quite good that some areas are run traditionally, while others break with tradition.

To deal with the paradoxes and contradictions and to move calmly in this field of tension is my appeal not only to others, but also to myself.

As interesting as such typologies are, they are sometimes controversial, not because they are completely wrong, but because they stir up prejudice, especially if you catch people on the wrong foot and use characteristics as weapons. Have you ever heard someone shout, "Oh, how wonderful, that's typical of you! How beautiful, your helpful nature has saved the situation! LOL We often use typologies in a negative sense and say: "Typical. Once again you have pulled yourself out of the affair!

As you can see, I found your article very inspiring and had a lot to say about it. You often would have seen me smile because I found the pictures of Ru so touching and I felt strongly reminded of my son at that age. What a wonderful time! Continue along in your quest to show him mountains and forests. :))