This document contains a figure that ranks 12 countries on a scale from strongly reactive to occasionally reactive based on their cultural tendencies. It then discusses how common tendencies can facilitate smooth relations between countries of similar categories, while differences are more prominent between countries of different categories. Finally, it provides illustrations of these intercategory relationships.
This document contains a figure that ranks 12 countries on a scale from strongly reactive to occasionally reactive based on their cultural tendencies. It then discusses how common tendencies can facilitate smooth relations between countries of similar categories, while differences are more prominent between countries of different categories. Finally, it provides illustrations of these intercategory relationships.
This document contains a figure that ranks 12 countries on a scale from strongly reactive to occasionally reactive based on their cultural tendencies. It then discusses how common tendencies can facilitate smooth relations between countries of similar categories, while differences are more prominent between countries of different categories. Finally, it provides illustrations of these intercategory relationships.
2. China 3. Taiwan 4. Singapore, Hong Kong* 5. Finland* 6. Korea 7. Turkey† 8. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos† 9. Malaysia, Indonesia† 10. Pacific Islands (Fiji, Tonga, etc.)† 11. Sweden* Occasionally Reactive 12. Britain*
*Linear-active tendencies when reacting
† Multi-active tendencies when reacting
Figure 3.3 Ranking of Countries on the Reactive Scale
Figure 3.3 gives a suggested ranking of countries on the reactive scale, from strongly reactive to occasionally reactive.
Intercategory Comparisons
Common linear-active behavior will facilitate smooth relations between, for
instance, Swedes and Flemish Belgians. A common multi-active mentality will help contacts between Italians and Argentineans or Brazilians. In the Vietnam War, the most popular foreign troops with the South Vietnamese were reactive Koreans. There are naturally underlying similarities between members belong- ing to the same cultural category. When members of different cultural categories begin to interact, the differ- ences far outnumber the commonalities (see Figure 3.4). Figures 3.5 to 3.7 illustrate intercategory relationships. When you look care- fully at these diagrams, you can see that commonalities exist between all types, but tend to be thin on the ground between linear-actives and multi-actives.