I just crossed my mind that one of the reason people fight and aggress others is lack of knowledge and familiriaty with other people. Take Iran for example. How many people really know how the people of Tehran really live, how many people have seen the modernity in their city, the advancement of certain rights for their people, the simplicity and agreableness(sp?) of their people. Of course i agree their leaders are a bit loony, but the same can be said about the US and many other countries. My point is this, theres research that supports the theory that familiarity breed friendliness and attraction (Link, Link2 ). There's also an interesting real world case study of how this could happen in the so called Earthquake Diplomacy (Link, Link2). Theres also research that supports that when two rivalring(sp?) groups come together in order to reach so called superordinate goals that benefit both parties the friction and rivalry decrease and friendliness increases (Link ,Link 2). From this we could derive some sort of tactic to better relationship between troubled nations, for example student exchanges, exchange training programs for individuals. We could also establish goals that could be reached by both parties and that benefit both parties equally in order to better relationships. Now i don't know enough about all the factor such as what countries produce, what they need, or what goals could be reach by the various parties that have difficult relationships at the moment, but its just a thought. Opinions?

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by venomX How many people really know how the people of Tehran really live, how many people have seen the modernity in their city, the advancement of certain rights for their people, the simplicity and agreableness(sp?) of their people.

Iran was literally once the Paris of the middle east, beaches, skiing, resorts, shopping and so on until the extreamists took over from the government. Had they not done so it would have been a moderate muslim nation which would be much like Turkey is today probably mixed in with the wealth of places like the UAE and cites like Dubai.
I was over there in 1989 with my father after the war with Iraq had finished and you could still see a bit of the glory of the place back then but it had taken a bit of a beating. Havent been back since so I've got no idea of the place now.
People however are just like anyone else.
They work, eat, sleep, have families and just want too get by without any grief from the man overly much. Just like anyone else anywhere else and just like anywhere else, their governments along with the press are responsible for the perceptions we have of someone who doesnt live in your own country.

never met a Persian i didn't like.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I just crossed my mind that one of the reason people fight and aggress others is lack of knowledge and familiriaty with other people. Take Iran for example. How many people really know how the people of Tehran really live, how many people have seen the modernity in their city, the advancement of certain rights for their people, the simplicity and agreableness(sp?) of their people. Of course i agree their leaders are a bit loony, but the same can be said about the US and many other countries.

I think you're a bit off. It's true that a lack of familiarity is an obstacle to cooperation, but it does not really facilitate aggression. Human beings, like essentially every other animal will tend to regard the unfamiliar with caution, since it could be a potential danger. Aggression is typically reserved for those which pose a specific threat or for the purposes of obtaining something that is desired. Either of these requires some knowledge of the object of that aggression.

Iran is not hostile to nations it knows next to nothing about, it's hostile to nations it regards as potential threats upon its sovereignty. Similarly, the United States regards Iran as a potential threat. Neither of these analyses is particularly misguided. The United States certainly showed little regard for Iraq's sovereignty, didn't it? And Iran's nuclear ambitions do pose a genuine threat to the Unitd States as well...

I really don't think it's accurate to categorize the measured hostility between these nations as the product of unfamiliarity.

quote:

My point is this, theres research that supports the theory that familiarity breed friendliness and attraction (Link, Link2 ). There's also an interesting real world case study of how this could happen in the so called Earthquake Diplomacy (Link, Link2). Theres also research that supports that when two rivalring(sp?) groups come together in order to reach so called superordinate goals that benefit both parties the friction and rivalry decrease and friendliness increases (Link ,Link 2). From this we could derive some sort of tactic to better relationship between troubled nations, for example student exchanges, exchange training programs for individuals. We could also establish goals that could be reached by both parties and that benefit both parties equally in order to better relationships. Now i don't know enough about all the factor such as what countries produce, what they need, or what goals could be reach by the various parties that have difficult relationships at the moment, but its just a thought. Opinions?

If the underlying conflicts aren't resolved, then increased familiarity will do little to help. However, such an idea might be beneficial to forming better ties once those conflicts are resolved. Although, the means by which those conflicts end might make the whole enterprise rather pointless anyway.

Correct.

And being purposefully kept in the dark by propaganda also helps foster aggression, which for some twisted reason inate in you and me makes us band together.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think you're a bit off. It's true that a lack of familiarity is an obstacle to cooperation, but it does not really facilitate aggression. Human beings, like essentially every other animal will tend to regard the unfamiliar with caution, since it could be a potential danger. Aggression is typically reserved for those which pose a specific threat or for the purposes of obtaining something that is desired. Either of these requires some knowledge of the object of that aggression. Iran is not hostile to nations it knows next to nothing about, it's hostile to nations it regards as potential threats upon its sovereignty. Similarly, the United States regards Iran as a potential threat. Neither of these analyses is particularly misguided. The United States certainly showed little regard for Iraq's sovereignty, didn't it? And Iran's nuclear ambitions do pose a genuine threat to the Unitd States as well...

I used familiarity because research supports that concept and the facilitation of relationships because of it. I guess when it comes to nations it would be more along the lines of knowledge of goals, and a more in depth understanding of the traditions/customs, not just familiarity. Many conflicts throughout history have come from misunderstandings in initial interactions or interactions where tensions have been high. That initial mishap ends up shaping the relationship for years to come. I am not purporting this as a magic bullet solution, but as a part of a bigger effort. It would be naive for me to believe that just familiarity alone would resolve conflicts that have been around for centuries, but i do believe its an useful tool to prevent mis-perceptions in future interactions and hence diminish the possibility of future conflict.

quote:

If the underlying conflicts aren't resolved, then increased familiarity will do little to help. However, such an idea might be beneficial to forming better ties once those conflicts are resolved. Although, the means by which those conflicts end might make the whole enterprise rather pointless anyway.

I agree, that sums up a good deal on what i believe on this subject, i just wasn't very eloquent in the delivery of my ideas.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome