Why Poor Countries Make Us Happier, Freer, More Alive

[Winston]

I've come to realize something. I think we would be happier in poorer countries. In poor countries the system is not as mechanized and efficient as first world countries like USA or Japan. So people will be LESS MODIFIED than in first world countries.

This means they will be more natural, open, wild, friendly, warm and down to earth. And women will be more open to flirtation and cold approaches.

In such countries dating beautiful women is much much easier too, a thousand times easier in fact. This is the biggest taboo secret in America. If you talk about it on YouTube you will be banned.

Overall poor countries are more fun if you have a soul and care about dating, social life, freedom, human connection and fun.

In contrast, rich countries are more mechanized and dependent on efficiency. So it must MODIFY and condition human behavior to be strict, serious, uptight, robotic and workaholic to adapt to large scale industries. Otherwise it cannot maintain its status as a first world country.

That's why people in the first world have been conditioned to be more strict, closed, fake, unsocial, paranoid, uptight and robotic.

Such countries cannot afford to let people have fun or be wild or focused on love, romance, friendship or family, otherwise it could not maintain system efficiency. In order to survive the system must condition people to put it's needs FIRST above all else.

In such highly mechanistic societies, all that matters is WORK WORK WORK and productivity. Nothing else really matters. Even love, friendship, family, happiness, truth, or even the human soul do not really matter. Only the maintenance and progress of the system does.

But the productivity and efficiency of the first world comes at the price of everything else, including the human soul and all that's natural. That's what industrial society doesn't tell you.

Bottom line: If you want to be more happy, wild and free, and you care about real human connection and deep social relationships with others, and you are not that materialistic nor do you live to work, then you will be HAPPIER and better off in poorer countries. You don't have to stick with first world countries if your needs are not met there. First world countries are for workaholics. If you aren't one then you have no business there and will be out of place.

Poor countries are more fun, alive and natural. People like us who are genuine and have real souls will be happier, more alive and liberated in poorer countries. We will feel more uncaged and free in poor countries, not suffocating in a cage like in first world countries that depend on people becoming robots to maintain the efficiency of industrial society, which forces people to adapt to the needs of the system.

Therefore if anyone tells you that it's bad to go to poor countries, you can tell them the above, that at least poor countries allow you to be more wild, more free, more alive, more natural and more genuine. Rich countries do not allow that, they only allow you to WORK WORK WORK. That's the key difference that the system doesn't want you to know.

The US media never talks about any of this though. It assumes that a richer economy is always better than a poor one in every way and that economic progress is a win-win situation in every aspect. The US media believes that more money creates more happiness for all. It does not acknowledge all the consequences described above. Stupid brainless soulless morons they are.

American culture also thinks that spoiling people by giving them everything they want is a good thing. It does not acknowledge the negative consequences of that. It is very lacking in wisdom and common sense due to its obsession and idolization of materialism and status.

[Cornfed]

I've come to realize something. I think we would be happier in poorer countries.

In other news, water is wet.

[starchild5]

I will add to it further being from a poor third world country myself....A poor country must also be free from all "Cultural" BS...How great a countries customs and cultures are, which essentially makes you think in a box and not feel free. Also, a poor country must be free from the clutches of "Religion" and making religion a part of their everyday life and giving Religion to dictate their thought process.

Many Poor Countries suffer from the dictate of Religion and Culture, that's why poor countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, to some extent China as far as freedom of thought is concerned Do not Fit many of Freedom loving Souls abode. That's like 50% of worlds population.

Countries like Dominican Republic, Many Caribbean Islands, Some Latin American countries, Eastern Europe, South East Asia are best fit for freedom loving souls as they are not overly crazy on Culture And religion unlike India, China which has the burden of over 10,000 years of History of Customs and cultures to follow.

I would lean to Thailand and Philippines as the best country for a Soul as Its not overly Cultural like India and not overly poor and developed either...Thailand has good history but not too much to burden you...Philippines has too much religion but it does not force you to measure upto it like in Middle Eastern Islamic countries.

South America is also a good place as many HAs have experienced.

-----------------

As we know controllers are far more darker than we are led to believe...They would definitely make sure that when you live America you would be faced with new sets of problems...That is to be expected from them by the way they have designed the planets society to rule for 1000s of years.....If the control wasn't that deep enough.....One would have been free in 5-10 years time itself after living America.

---------------

With that being said....I have compared my life living in a dirt poor country and it does not even come close to the Sickness that is America. ...You not only loose everything in America but also your soul....At least, I get to keep my soul and sanity here.

Contrary to what the world makes us believe...Its the first world that really needs to be saved not the third world, as strange that may sound but on a higher, deeper level ...It is the way to save entire humanity as first world is the lever the controllers use to make the world move. The dollar, The bank, The military might are all in with the first world and we know how they have crushed humanity as a whole. Once we get rid of the first world false power...We can make the world free....That's why its the first world that needs to be saved aka woken up to the con.

Third world cannot be saved unless first world is saved first. Guaranteed. The Evil Structure needs to be destroyed first and its all located in first world countries.

------------------------

Its HappierAbroad members and Winston that made me realize, the true value of living in a poor country, I was also brainwashed by the false grandeur of America by way of CNN, FOX and Hollywood...Its Winston that broke the illusion of America No one else in the history of America from its birth to its present phase. He should be called the illusionator as he terminates the Illusions of America by the dozens every month

[Ghost]

.

[Jester]

I've come to realize something. I think we would be happier in poorer countries.

In other news, water is wet.

[Jester]

Great thread here. Great OP, Winston.

[Taco]

I remember hearing a story once about a petroleum engineer that made $1000/day. He hung himself while at work.

Here's where the world's happiest people live.

[WorldTraveler]

Taco,
great statistics and map. I agree with it totally. There is a whole other list of happiest countries and it's based on GDP. Unfortunately rich countries have some of the most unhappy people in the world. So what if I make a lot of money in the West but all I do is work my social life sucks!

[LifestyleServiceAgency]

"Developing countries" might provide more happiness because they're less contaminated by The Power Elite.

[Rock]

I remember hearing a story once about a petroleum engineer that made $1000/day. He hung himself while at work.

Here's where the world's happiest people live.

If this map is correct, it seems the correlation between lower incomes and happiness is weak. Just look at how miserable Africa and Mongolia seem to be on this map. All are full of very poor people! And Norway, one of the world's richest countries is way up there on happiness.

[newlifeinphilippines]

seems vietnam women are quite content on that map. so maybe not a place to find a wife.

[Winston]

If this map is correct, it seems the correlation between lower incomes and happiness is weak. Just look at how miserable Africa and Mongolia seem to be on this map. All are full of very poor people! And Norway, one of the world's richest countries is way up there on happiness.

It depends on which countries you focus on. What I said about happier people in poorer countries definitely applies in Latin America and SE Asia according to that map.

Admittedly, Russia is not a happy country. People there are pessimists and celebrate that fact. That's what makes them so authentic and refreshing to people like us who hate fakeness.

However my point is that WE would be happier in poorer countries because they are more wild and girls are much more approachable, which is necessary for my happiness. Otherwise I'm not in my element.

Also poor countries have people who are more natural and not as modified to serve the system because their culture is more focused on fun and social connection than economic industrial efficiency.

Hence there's better social connection for us there. And we can be ourselves as well. Hope that makes sense.

[The_Adventurer]

If this map is correct, it seems the correlation between lower incomes and happiness is weak. Just look at how miserable Africa and Mongolia seem to be on this map. All are full of very poor people! And Norway, one of the world's richest countries is way up there on happiness.

One thing to consider is than in some of these happy countries, where they have happiness but not money, the people aren't exactly poor, though they might appear so by western standards.

I read somewhere that many families in South America don't have much in the way of income, but they have no debt. They own their house, sometimes passed down since grandfather's time. They grow stuff on their land, have some chickens and maybe even pigs. They can't grow everything, but many people grow different things and can trade with their neighbors. They don't have or need a car. So they can't go buy the latest flat screen TV, but they are really lacking nothing as far as what is needed for life.

The same with my Grandmother in rural China. She has zero income, except for maybe what family members gift to her from time to time. Still, she owns her house, has no debt, and grows lots of stuff on her land. She has chickens for meat and for making eggs. Every time she comes to our place she brings tons of eggs. She has pigs and a horse (not sure what the horse is for). Sometimes I go there and we pick vegetables from her land, they kill a pig, take some eggs and we eat a big feast all from stuff right there. All her neighbors seem to have similar stuff and they can trade. Often I don't know who is family and who is a neighbor.

The situation is far from poor, destitute and starving people in Africa or other places low on the happiness index.

[Winston]

I'm surprised America isn't ranked in that chart as being the happiest country since most America will say they are happy if you ask them because pretending to be happy and great is part of their culture. How did they determine which countries are happy or unhappy?

Not surprisingly, Taiwan is low on the happiness scale too. Workaholic countries tend to be less happy. I wish the US media would publicize that and talk about that. All they talk about is economic progress.

[paulo]

More or less in line with Hofstede scale.Happiness(subjective well being) is about feeling you are free to have fun without restraints and that you feel in control of your life.See below:

In its special Christmas edition, at a time when people in the traditionally
Christian world are supposed to be merry and happy, the
well-known British magazine The Economist once published the following
story:1
Once a week, on Sundays, Hong Kong becomes a different city. Thousands
of Filipina women throng into the central business district, around Statue
Square, to picnic, dance, sing, gossip, and laugh. . . . They hug. They chatter.
They smile. Humanity could stage no greater display of happiness.
This stands in stark contrast to the other six days of the week. Then it is
the Chinese, famously cranky and often rude, and expatriate businessmen,
permanently stressed, who control the center. On these days, the Filipinas
are mostly holed up in the 154,000 households across the territory where
they work as “domestic helpers” or amahs in Cantonese. There they suffer
not only the loneliness of separation from their own families, but often
virtual slavery under their Chinese or expatriate masters. Hence a mystery:
those who should be Hong Kong’s most miserable are, by all appearances,
its happiest. . . .
278 DIMENSIONS OF NATIONAL CULTURES
Happiness, or subjective well-being (SWB), as academics prefer to call
it, is a universally cherished goal. Some philosophical schools, such as classic
Buddhism, condemn the pursuit of happiness and consider it a reproachable
waste of time in which an enlightened person should not engage.
However, such elitist doctrines cannot have been easily embraced by the
masses. Throughout the world and regardless of their religion, most people
would like to attain a state of bliss here and now and, in contrast to classic
Buddhist pundits, are not deterred by the certainty of its transience.
Unfortunately, some nations as a whole do much better than others in
the universal chase of happiness. Even more disturbing for the stragglers
is that research on cross-cultural differences in SWB evidences a high level
of stability in the country rankings. There are fl uctuations, to be sure, but
no major shifts have been observed since the fi rst national rankings were
reported decades ago, based on large-scale measurements of happiness.
Moreover, some studies have demonstrated a high similarity between the
SWB rank order of twenty nations and the SWB rank order of groups of
Americans with ancestors from those nations. This means that even when
people of different ethnic origins share the same environment, they do not
become equally happy, and some old differences remain for some time.2
The Nature of Subjective Well-Being
There is a vast academic literature on SWB. Usually, two main aspects are
distinguished: a cognitive evaluation of one’s life and a description of one’s
feelings.3 Life satisfaction and emotional affect are not necessarily one and
the same phenomenon. Some people may perceive that their lives are going
well without necessarily being in an elevated mood, and vice versa.
The World Values Survey addresses both aspects of SWB by asking
people how satisfi ed they are with their lives and how happy they feel.
Nations that score high on the fi rst of these two questions usually score
high on the second as well, but the correlation is not very strong. National
differences in life satisfaction can be explained convincingly by means of
differences in national wealth, but this variable has relatively little to do
with the happiness item in the WVS. The countries with the highest percentages
of very happy respondents are typically poor or not particularly
wealthy. They are located in western Africa (Nigeria, Ghana) and in northern
Latin America (Mexico, El Salvador, Colombia, Venezuela). What are
we to make of this?
Light or Dark? 279
Disbelief is not an uncommon reaction to such fi ndings. Not only some
laypersons but also a few scholars consider the practice of measuring happiness
dubious. It seems to them that this is simply something too elusive,
vague, and changeable to be measured. Such views, however, are a minority
in mainstream social science. Leading experts on the matter, including
U.S. psychologist Ed Diener and Dutch sociologist Ruut Veenhoven, have
demonstrated beyond any doubt that measuring happiness is meaningful.4
Also, Misho has pointed out that nations with higher percentages of people
who state that they are very happy have a lower incidence of deaths from
cardiovascular diseases.5 A strong correlation between the two remains
even after taking into account a major factor: national differences in wealth
(and hence in the quality of health care that people receive). People’s reports
of their personal happiness are not empty words removed from reality.
There is no shortage of theories that explain the observed national differences
in happiness.6 Many of them are based on relatively small country
samples and are consequently unreliable as a general explanation. No one
denies the evident fact that the determinants of happiness are numerous
and that some of them may be more prominent in one society than in
another. Nevertheless, that does not mean that universal trends are impossible
to fi nd.
Subjective Well-Being and the World Values Survey
In Chapters 4 and 5 we cited the dimension well-being versus survival in
Inglehart’s overall analysis of the WVS. It was associated with the combination
of high individualism (IDV) and low masculinity (MAS). Although
a search of the cultural determinants of happiness was not in the focus of
Inglehart’s interests, his dimension includes at the survival side a measure
of unhappiness.7 Other items that defi ned this dimension had to do with
giving priority to economic and physical security over quality of life, being
politically passive, rejecting homosexuality, and being very careful about
trusting people. Further, the dimension was strongly correlated with a
belief that men make better political leaders and that women need children
to be fulfi lled, an emphasis on technology, a rejection of out-group members
(such as foreigners), a perception of low life control, and many more
characteristics.
Inglehart’s well-being versus survival dimension is statistically correct.
Also, despite the mind-boggling diversity of items that defi ne it, it is
280 DIMENSIONS OF NATIONAL CULTURES
after all conceptually defendable, since everything with which it is associated
seems to stem, one way or another, from national differences in wealth
versus poverty. It functions well as a catchall dimension that explains the
differences between rich and poor nations and indicates what cultural and
social changes one might expect after a particular country has achieved
economic development. However, this telescopic view leaves many salient
details unexplained. In particular, it says nothing about the important
question of why some poor nations have such high percentages of very
happy people.8
Indulgence Versus Restraint as a
Societal Dimension
Intrigued by Inglehart’s analysis of the WVS, Misho performed his own.
He discovered that Inglehart’s well-being versus survival dimension can be
split into two, not only conceptually but also statistically. Items that have
to do with relationships between groups of people or between individuals
and groups (such as agreement that men make better leaders or that a
woman needs children) form the dimension that Misho called universalism
versus exclusionism, discussed in Chapter 4 as a variant of individualism
versus collectivism. Items primarily related to happiness form a separate
group and a different dimension.9 Across more than ninety countries, two
WVS items in particular predicted happiness better than any other survey
variables reported so far.
Misho considered these as the core of a new dimension. This is how
they—and the happiness item—were formulated in the WVS:
1. Happiness: “Taking all things together, would you say you are very
happy, quite happy, not very happy, or not at all happy.” Measured was
the percentage choosing “very happy.”
2. Life control: “Some people feel they have completely free choice over
their lives, while other people feel that what they do has no real effect
on what happens to them. Please use this scale where 1 means ‘none
at all’ and 10 means ‘a great deal’ to indicate how much freedom of
choice and control you feel you have over the way your life turns out.”
Measured were the average national scores reported by the WVS.10
3. Importance of leisure: “For each of the following, indicate how
important it is in your life: very important, rather important, not very
Light or Dark? 281
important, or not at all important: family, friends, leisure time, politics,
work, religion, service to others.” Measured was the percentage
choosing “very important” for leisure time.11
The correlates and predictors of happiness at the national level are therefore,
fi rst, a perception of life control, a feeling that one has the liberty to
live one’s life more or less as one pleases, without social restrictions that
curb one’s freedom of choice; and second, importance of leisure as a personal
value. Happiness, life control, and importance of leisure are mutually
correlated, and these associations remained stable over subsequent survey
waves. They thus defi ned a strong common dimension.
Apart from the three key items, the dimension was also positively
associated with a high importance of having friends and negatively with
choosing thrift as a valuable trait for children.
It follows that one of the two poles of this dimension is characterized
by a perception that one can act as one pleases, spend money, and indulge
in leisurely and fun-related activities with friends or alone. All this predicts
relatively high happiness. At the opposite pole we fi nd a perception that
one’s actions are restrained by various social norms and prohibitions and
a feeling that enjoyment of leisurely activities, spending, and other similar
types of indulgence are somewhat wrong. Because of these properties of
the dimension, Misho has called it indulgence versus restraint (IVR).12
National scores for the dimension are listed in Table 8.1.13
The defi nition that we propose for this dimension is as follows: Indulgence
stands for a tendency to allow relatively free gratifi cation of basic and
natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun. Its opposite pole,
restraint, refl ects a conviction that such gratifi cation needs to be curbed and
regulated by strict social norms. As a cultural dimension, indulgence versus
restraint rests on clearly defi ned research items that measure very specifi c
phenomena. Note that the gratifi cation of desires on the indulgence side
refers to enjoying life and having fun, not to gratifying human desires in
general.
This is a truly new dimension that has not been reported so far in the
academic literature; it deserves more study. It somewhat resembles a distinction
in U.S. anthropology between loose and tight societies. In loose
societies norms are expressed with a wide range of alternative channels,
and deviant behavior is easily tolerated; tight societies maintain strong
values of group organization, formality, permanence, durability, and soli282
DIMENSIONS OF NATIONAL CULTURES
TABLE 8.1 Indulgence Versus Restraint (IVR) Index Scores for 93 Countries and Regions
Based on Factor Scores from Three Items in the World Values Survey
EUROPE N/NW EUROPE C/E MUSLIM WORLD ASIA EAST
RANK AMERICA C/S EUROPE S/SE ANGLO WORLD EX-SOVIET M.E & AFRICA ASIA SE INDEX
1 Venezuela 100
2 Mexico 97
3 Puerto Rico 90
4 El Salvador 89
5 Nigeria 84
6 Colombia 83
7 Trinidad 80
8 Sweden 78
9 New Zealand 75
10 Ghana 72
11 Australia 71
12–13 Cyprus 70
12–13 Denmark 70
14 Great Britain 69
15–17 Canada 68
15–17 Netherlands 68
15–17 United States 68
18 Iceland 67
19–20 Switzerland 66
19–20 Malta 66
21–22 Andorra 65
21–22 Ireland 65
23–24 S Africa 63
23–24 Austria 63
25 Argentina 62
Light or Dark? 283
26 Brazil 59
27–29 Finland 57
27–29 Malaysia 57
27–29 Belgium 57
30 Luxembourg 56
31 Norway 55
32 Dominican Rep. 54
33 Uruguay 53
34–35 Uganda 52
34–35 Saudi Arabia 52
36 Greece 50
37–38 Taiwan 49
37–38 Turkey 49
39–40 France 48
39–40 Slovenia 48
41–43 Peru 46
41–43 Ethiopia 46
41–43 Singapore 46
44 Thailand 45
45–46 Bosnia 44
45–46 Spain 44
47–48 Jordan 43
47–48 Mali 43
49–51 Zambia 42
49–51 Philippines 42
49–51 Japan 42
52–53 Germany 40
52–53 Iran 40
54 Kyrgyzstan 39
55–56 Tanzania 38
55–56 Indonesia 38
continued
284 DIMENSIONS OF NATIONAL CULTURES
57 Rwanda 37
58–59 Vietnam 35
58–59 Macedonia 35
60 Germany E 34
61–62 Portugal 33
61–62 Croatia 33
63–64 Algeria 32
63–64 Georgia 32
65 Hungary 31
66 Italy 30
67–69 S Korea 29
67–69 Czech Rep. 29
67–69 Poland 29
70–72 Slovakia 28
70–72 Serbia 28
70–72 Zimbabwe 28
73 India 26
74 Morocco 25
75 China 24
76 Azerbaijan 22
77–80 Russia 20
77–80 Montenegro 20
77–80 Romania 20
77–80 Bangladesh 20
81 Moldova 19
TABLE 8.1 Indulgence Versus Restraint (IVR) Index Scores for 93 Countries and Regions
Based on Factor Scores from Three Items in the World Values Survey, continued
EUROPE N/NW EUROPE C/E MUSLIM WORLD ASIA EAST
RANK AMERICA C/S EUROPE S/SE ANGLO WORLD EX-SOVIET M.E & AFRICA ASIA SE INDEX
Light or Dark? 285
82 Burkina Faso 18
83–84 Hong Kong 17
83–84 Iraq 17
85–87 Estonia 16
85–87 Bulgaria 16
85–87 Lithuania 16
88–89 Belarus 15
88–89 Albania 15
90 Ukraine 14
91 Latvia 13
92 Egypt 4
93 Pakistan 0
286 DIMENSIONS OF NATIONAL CULTURES
darity.14 In Geert’s earlier publications, this distinction was conceptually
associated with uncertainty avoidance, but he did not fi nd objective ways of
measuring it.15
The indulgence versus restraint dimension solves the paradox of the
poor Filipinas who are happier than the rich citizens of Hong Kong. The
Philippines in Table 8.1 can be seen to rank higher on indulgence than Hong
Kong, but still a lot lower than societies in northern Latin America or some
western African nations.
The correlations of IVR with the IBM dimensions described in this
book are as follows: IVR shows a weak negative correlation with power distance
(PDI), indicating a slight tendency for more hierarchical societies to
be less indulgent. It is not correlated with the other IBM dimensions, nor
with long-term orientation as measured with the Chinese Values Survey
(LTO-CVS).16
The relationship of IVR with LTO-WVS is shown in Figure 8.1, which
crosses the two dimensions among ninety common countries. The overall
correlation is signifi cantly negative.17 This is to be expected, in view of
the lack of support in indulgent societies for thrift as a desirable trait in
children. However, the common variance of LTO-WVS and IVR is just 20
percent, much less than, for example, the 35 percent shared variance of two
other established dimensions, PDI and IDV.
The quadrants of the diagram show a clear regional pattern. The
relatively rare combination of high indulgence plus long-term orientation
groups nine European Union member countries plus Switzerland, Taiwan,
and Singapore. The most common pattern—high indulgence plus shortterm
orientation—groups twelve Latin American countries, four African
countries, four Anglo countries, fi ve northern European countries, four
southern European countries, and two Southeast Asian countries. The next
most common pattern—restraint plus long-term orientation—groups nine
East and South Asian countries, nineteen Eastern European countries, and
a few others. The rarer combination of restraint plus short-term orientation
is found in fi ve Muslim countries, six black African countries, and a
few others.
Statistically, there is a positive relationship between indulgence and
national wealth, signifi cant but weak.18 National wealth explains about 10
percent of country differences in indulgence. Restraint is somewhat more
likely under poverty, which makes sense.