According to the Institute for Economics & Peace, the most peaceful country in the world is Iceland. Yes, the country that disrupted air travel across Europe with its spewing, unpronounceable volcano a couple of years ago. Icelanders have an upside for everything: they use the energy of volcanoes for heat.
Iceland is one of the most progressive nations on the planet: its welfare system offers health care and higher education for each of its 320,000 citizens; it is powered in large part by renewable geothermal energy (see volcanoes, above); and it was one of the first countries in the world to legalize gay marriage.
Tying for second place are Denmark and New Zealand. Try to guess the nation that came in dead last before you check out the article at TIME Newsfeed. Link
(Image credit: Flickr user Stephen_AU)
Research comparing Icelandic and U.S. 12-year olds illustrates this difference in the attention to and importance of an internal, personal self-image (Hart & Edelstein, 1992). Iceland is very culturally homogenous; there has been little immigration for many centuries, and there is a countrywide school curriculum and set of traditional texts. Hart and Fegley (1997) report that when they asked Icelandic youths to describe themselves, using a interview technique widely used with 12-year olds in the United States, the young people often had great difficulty. They report that between 25% and 40% of the Icelandic youths found questions such as, "What are you like?" too strange to answer. Although these children were quite able to describe other people and functioned well both academically and socially, self-scrutiny and self-description were not necessary or culturally valued activities (see also Barth, 1997). Consequently, behaviors intended to defend, self-constructed self-image may be less commonly found in homogenous cultures such as Iceland.
One consequence of the necessity to create and sustain one's own identity independent of the cultural context is that this identity must be continually verified, reexamined, updated, and defended. In the mobile Western society, in which many communities and associations are transitory or short term, individuals must continually reestablish this internal coherence and continuity as they communicate their identities to new associates and acquaintances (Camilleri & Malewska-Peyre, 1997). As a result, Western psychologists have identified a plethora of means whereby individuals protect, defend, verify, and sustain self-images. Self-affirmation, self-verification, self-enhancement, self-serving biases, self-symbolization, self-presentation, self-esteem maintenance, self-categorization, self-consistency, self-deception, self-handicapping - all are processes that Western psychologists have identified as vital for the construction, maintenance, and defense of the self-constructed identity.
- The Handbook of Self and Identity, 27. Cultural Models of the Self, p. 561
Thanks kalmbob. I also strive for coherence in my world-view and do not like the idea that my view of societies can be in such contrast with my view of psyches - or of brains and biology - that there is no reasonable relationship between the two. So, although I can't go into the details of it, I feel this view has a basis in psychology and neuroscience. In particular, there's a paper called Integrated Information Theory: A Provisional Manifesto by Giulio Tononi and Gerald Edelman that characterizes consciousness as a phenomenal map constructed in real-time (or "online") that depends on taking a continuum of phenomena and converting it into a system of related concepts. For example, the retina separates the light-spectrum into three distinct colors which are then recombined to form the color-spectrum. The light-spectrum and the color-spectrum are not the same things, the latter is conscious representation of the former, which appears to have three sharply contrasted primary elements, whereas in the light-spectrum there are no sharply contrasted elements. So too, the brain conceptualizes human identities in similar fashion, basically by perceiving vast differences where no differences actually exist, or by exaggerating small differences in order to carve out one's own identity. And our very sense of self, of 'I', depends on these identities as arbitrary as they are.
So, I generally agree that there are far more similarities among nations than there are differences. Above all since these identities are relative to each other and nothing else they share everything together. The idea that I'm a Canadian would be utterly meaningless if Canada was the only nation in the universe. We can differentiate ourselves as Humans on the premise that there are other species, or even by imagining that there might be Extraterrestrials we can conceive of ourselves as "Earthlings". But if there was only one people in the entire universe within which everyone was exactly identical, then it would be impossible to identify ourselves as anything. I tend to view identity as integral to consciousness and that is why I also view the construction and maintenance of identity as more influential in the world than anything else, and basically what drives everything that goes beyond basic self-preservation behavior.
Anyway, I don't want to say it's a hobby interest, because I think comprehending reality is of utmost and critical importance to any self-conscious being and focus a lot of my efforts on it, but I'm no psychologist.
You have a well reasoned and detailed opinion. Damn, I never thought I'd write that on internet comment boards ever.
I usually focus on a more psychology perspective myself (being a psychologist), so I tend to avoid broad scale sociological and cultural accounts. I prefer individual cultural accounts. Both are important perspectives.
By the way, I'm not saying Canadians are better or worse than Americans (nor are you saying this), but Canadians, Americans, and some other English speaking countries do share a lot of cultural background, so Canada is an interesting foil for those who argue for American Exceptionalism. There are differences, sure, but a lot more are in commonalities in religion, politics, legal system, and more.
Did my insurance company pay? No, they say my condition wasn't life threatening. The hospital was ten miles away. I couldn't drive myself. Bus service stops in the evening and doesn't go to the hospital anyway. Might have been able to call a taxi but would they have accepted a passenger bleeding from his head? So I would have either had to bum a ride with someone or walk. This is while I have a bleeding head injury.
I don't have cut rate insurance either. It what is considered a high quality plan and is through my employer, one of the most powerful law firms on earth. Yet the insurance company is sticking to its guns and refuses to pay a single cent of the $800 cost for the ambulance.
As they say, the US has the best healthcare in the world... if you can afford it.
Because we are neighbors and because Canada's population is 1/10th the population of the United States, this is a perfect opportunity for the Canadian identity to be optimally distinct.
Now, I don't agree that "Canadians are better than Americans". I don't think national identity can be compared as such, but I'm well aware that many of my fellow Canadians think so. A large part of the Canadian Identity seems entwined with denigrating the American identity. Perhaps the single most defining characteristic of the Canadian Identity is this; not American.
What I'm alluding to is that crime-peace metric probably correlates best with a method-of-self-regulation metric or possibly a degree-of-self-consciousness scale.
I believe that the dominant strategies for self-regulation in a given population will be a better predictor crime rates than any religious belief, economic-inequality or anything else. Unfortunately there are no studies, of which I'm aware, that directly measure the dominant self-regulatory strategies employed by a population.
However, it does appear that the dominant self-regulatory strategy in the United States is introjected and based on approval/disapproval of significant others within domains of contingent self-regard. The breakdown of social standards carried over from its past has left American society in a unstable soupy system of ideals that change from one day to the next depending on the shifting direction of the wind. And people are constantly striving to assimilate themselves in the latest and prevailing standards of conduct. Rather than rely on a more objective theory of morality, pro-social or peaceful orientation and belief system, Americans seem largely driven to be seen as a stereotypical embodiment of the latest moral fad.
Another possible contributor resembles the earlier considerations raised by Joshua. There is a strong motive toward "optimal distinctiveness" within a population. People want to belong, but prefer not to belong to a majority, perhaps quite intuitively they prefer to belong to a dominant minority (an elite). Icelanders, being a small group on the world-stage may find solidarity in their national group-identity and feel screened off from the rest of the world in their uniqueness and superiority. Whereas, inside the United States there is much more intranational competition for status and optimal distinctiveness as a feature of its population relative to other nations.
This drive toward optimal distinctiveness seems bound-up in social comparisons. There are multiple levels of social differentiation upon which these comparisons are made; national, geological, ethnic, sex, gender, Socio-Economic Status (Status-Inequality) and so forth. A person may feel optimally distinct as an LGBT-American and feel that only their group of fellow LGBTers are truly compassionate and understanding folk, but feel less optimally distinct on the nationality metric, and feel more homogenized by their American identity.
Historically, I think, the American Identity has been upheld as optimally distinct from the rest of the world. Regarding themselves as harder working, more moral, more considerate, thoughtful and fair. But the United States is one of the largest populations in the world which saturates the uniqueness of this identity, and recent foreign military actions and the rise of the popular "Occupy Movement" that challenges the economic disparity in the US strongly threatens the American Identity as moral, considerate, fair and hard working.
So, there is less opportunity there for optimal distinctiveness on the abstract dimension of national identity. Consequently people are less interested in pursuing the common goals of national progress and are more oriented toward selfish, private goals and establishing an optimal distinct identity in relation to their compatriots - bringing greater conflict within the nation.
Anyway, I don't know, nor do I wish to profess any particular belief on the matter, but it is of some interest to me.
I saw that article, but it is not convincing to me.
Note Denmark. 9.5% belief in hell according to the link you supplied. 2nd to last on belief in hell, yet on world peace it ranks 2nd in world peace.
I can understand the motivator of punishment affects human behavior, but it always bothered me that it had to be based on religion. It doesn't. Perhaps a different measure (that may correlate to belief in hell), would be belief in a just world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis)
Granted, this is a pretty complicated subject and there are bound to be innumerable social and economic factors that contribute to all of these metrics.
(http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/05/27/world-religiosity-iii-belief-in-heaven-and-hell/)
"...the proportion of people who believe in hell negatively predicts national crime rates whereas belief in heaven predicts higher crime rates. These effects remain after accounting for a host of covariates, and ultimately prove stronger predictors of national crime rates than economic variables such as GDP and income inequality." - Divergent Effects of Beliefs in Heaven and Hell on National Crime Rates, Azim F. Shariff1*, Mijke Rhemtulla2
Other research shows that belief in one's own immortality negatively correlates with self-conscious thought and emotions that are integral to most self-regulatory strategies. Whereas, belief in one's own mortality correlates positively with increases in self-conscious thought and emotions (e.g., shame, guilt, pride, embarrassment, etc..) and orients one more toward seeking social status and the approval of others.
It's kind of a catch-22 because on the one hand self-conscious thought and emotion interferes with one's ability to perform a task efficiently, and provides the motive for deception of others and of oneself. Self-conscious thought and emotion is positively linked to increases in risky behavior, such as drug-use, unprotected sex, alcoholism and violence. It is also responsible for negative sociological outcomes like scapegoating, passing the buck, stereotyping and all other forms of prejudice. Self-conscious thought and emotion has a strong influence on one's thought-processes and biases them toward self-serving explanations and rationalizations of one's own behavior. It negatively correlates with critical self-awareness. However, there may be a another option besides extreme self-consciousness - the kind that drives every woman to disguise herself beneath layers of cosmetics, and every man to put on a phony personality in-front of women - and the alternate extreme of never giving a damn about anyone or anything.
The really sad thing is that both Heaven and Hell are relevant only to the self, and are capable of influencing behavior in such ways purely by threat of punishment or promise of reward to oneself. This egotism is the core of our problem as self-conscious beings.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/02/09/icelanders-avoid-inbreeding-through-online-incest-database/
Gryt...how is that Hogwash? I won't even dignify that with a list of statistics. You can spend 5 minutes on Google to determine that Iceland is VASTLY Caucasian and local born. The US is one of the most diverse countries on the planet...which is what I love about it. But we are also the richest, so there is no excuse for a mother in this country to have to hesitate to take her child to the doctor because she can't afford it. But, many of these small and well off nations with such high standards of living have strict immigration policies and keep to themselves.
In Iceland children of foreign parents are not automatically citizens just from being born there. As an adult you need several years of residency, you must be reasonably fluent in Icelandic, you need signed letters of reference from former employers, you need to submit tax records, and finally there is a citizenship test.
I know Iceland is low on natural resources but the inexpensive energy is a big help economically.
I don't want to get political here but in the US many people argue simultaneously for expanding the welfare state, restricting the gathering of natural resources, opening the borders, and giving citizenship to all residents.
What complete and utter hogwash.
As for the UK, a friends mom had a heart attack, they waited for an ambulance, gave up and took her to the hospital. The ambulance finally arrived 7 hours later and they were charged for it because no one was there. The woman then spent a week on a roller bed in a hallway at the hospital.
I had the same issue. I have insurance. No charge for the ambulance and I shared a nice double room.
I would rather pay for insurance and be treated well then get it for free and be treated like crap.
The U.S. is a fair comparison to say, Canada in culture. They have approximately 1/10th our population. Admittedly they are somewhat less diverse, but they are much more diverse than say, Iceland.
Yet Canada is 4th. The US is 88th.
Of course, you might argue that it's population density that matters. So then I would draw your attention to say, the U.K, which is a more dense nation. They are 29th, on this ranking. Again, similar culturally to the US.
@AGFH. The UK and Canada both have mandated healthcare. The population of the UK is 62 Million, about 1/5th of ours. Yes net cost goes up, but not cost per capita. Actually, with overhead, you might expect per capita costs to go down in a larger country.
But still, you seem to think that if we had universal health care, it would be more expensive per person than it is now under the for-profit companies. How could that be?
I know people in other countries who go on about our lack of free public health care. Those countries, like Joshua said, have less people than just one of our cities. Can you imagine how much it would cost to give "free" health care to over 300 BILLION people??? Our taxes would exceed our incomes!!!