The ENSEIRB students mention disrespect a lot more than the MIT students who focus a lot on ignorance, whether stated directly or said in other words. This is really interesting to me, is it because it is easier for ignorant people to get into the public eye in America than in France?

I agree with Michael in that it seems that MIT students are much more bothered by ignorance. I think that this is probably because in general, Americans are fairly ignorant. Perhaps in France, ignorance is not a big problem but disrespect and rudeness are, particularly in a society where politeness and considerateness are very important. ENSEIRB students: do you think that when there are people you cannot stand, it is typically because they are ignorant or because they choose to behave a certain way?

I also think this disparity between ignorance and disrespect is interesting. Do the ENSEIRB students believe that ignorance is excusable? Or maybe more excusable than disrespect?

Je trouve également intéressant de voir que les étudiants du MIT ont insisté sur l’ignorance alors que les élèves de l’ENSEIRB ont beaucoup parlé de manque de respect. Comme l’a proposé Alexis, le manque de respect est peut-être très mal vu à cause du fait que nous accordons beaucoup d’importance en France à la politesse et aux normes établies. Cependant je me pose une question : est-ce que l’ignorance désigne ici le manque de connaissance (par exemple quelqu’un qui ne sait pas de quoi il parle mais qui fait comme si il savait tout) ou une attitude envers les autres ? Pour répondre à la question d’Alexis ainsi qu’à celle de knhicks, je pense que le comportement d’une personne irrespectueuse est plus condamnable que son ignorance (quand il s’agit d’ignorance en terme de connaissance) mais si on parle d’ignorance en terme de comportement envers quelqu’un d’autre, il s’agirait en fait d’un comportement pouvant être vu comme irrespectueux.

I’d argue that the ignorance that some of the MIT students are referring to is innately a form of disrespect. Personally, ignorance to me is not a problem if referring to lack of knowledge about a subject. I don’t think, however, this is what MIT students are referring to here. Instead, I believe it to refer to a neglect of information as well (as Julien suggested, often in attitudes towards people). Ignorance is infuriating when people choose to remain ignorant or neglect the insight pervasive around them or directly given to them. This is itself disrespect, as the ignorant individual doesn’t have the dignity to acknowledge the word or existence of others.

I agree with christienwilliams. I wonder why there is such importance placed on undersanding of common knowledge in an era of mass information at MIT. Is it because it is something that we value as people with access to a lot of information? Would it still be considered rude to the MIT side if the ignorant person was someone of a foregin culture or restricted information access?

Building off of what Christien and Tony have said, I think the idea boils down to selective ignorance. We wouldn’t expect someone from a foreign culture to understand every aspect of American culture, particularly if they are interested in learning. Instead, there are plenty of people in the U. S. who choose to maintain a limited point of view on major social and political issues, making constructive conversations impossible. I think the usage of words/phrases like “disregard”, “apathetic”, and “don’t try to open their perspective”. In my experience, American culture and politics tend to be very divisive, leaving both sides thinking that the other is ignorant. Are French politics and culture issues equally polarizing, or do you find that a shared commitment to respect and equality allows for common ground?

I agree with Collin and the example of American politics that he used to describe ignorance. I’d like to reiterate the point Christien said about ignorance being a form of disrespect, as it is means being inconsiderate of others and too focused on oneself and one’s thoughts. It is interesting how ignorance is also related to individualism, something that we concluded in the previous survey is highly valued by MIT students. While individualism focuses more internally on the person, ignorance focuses more on how these internal thoughts are expressed and interpreted towards others. However, if someone highly values individualism, this could also translate into the person accepting others for their unique and individual selves. Can an ignorant person value individualism, and to what extent could this be true?

I think the differences and similarities between the small things that annoy each of us are interesting to compare. We both talk about how chewing or eating with your mouth open is really annoying. But the MIT students get annoyed by people who stand still or walk slowly in hallways or on sidewalks, but an ENSEIRB student cannot stand when someone parks on the grass if there is an open parking spot. Is there a specific incident in mind? For instance, at MIT, most people are rushing to get to places so it is incredibly frustrating if slowly walking people slow you down.

I agree with what Christien, Tony, and Collin have said regarding ignorance. In its simplest definition, ignorance does mean lack of knowledge. However, as people have already said, MIT students are not using the word ignorance in this simple definition. Especially recently, as Collin said, American politics are very divisive. I think when different sides of the political spectrum call each other ignorant, it is often out of frustration because the divisiveness feels irreparable. This is something I think is discussed a lot at MIT among students and even with the administration as well. Do you find a similar dialogue at ENSEIRB?

I completely agree with Collin and Julia in that the word “ignorant” here is most likely used to refer to differing views on polarizing political issues. But I think as well that the definition of “lack of knowledge” may be at play too. In this era of misinformation and “fake news”, when messages are spread about a person or story that are not entirely true, lack of information can create the “ignorance” we speak of here.

I agree with the above points regarding ignorance. I think most MIT students are referring to selective ignorance, or a lack of respect. Other words that MIT students use such as “ignore others,” seem to suggest that the annoyance is when people don’t respect one another enough to listen to their opinions.

Je trouve très intéressant le fait que les étudiants du MIT ne supportent pas en premier lieu les personnes enfermées dans leur point de vue. Cela est vrai ici aussi mais on le met moins en valeur. Je pense que cela apparaît plus souvent chez les étudiants du MIT car les Etats Unis se veulent le pays de toutes les libertés. Ainsi depuis la création de ce pays, les habitants peuvent penser ce qu’ils veulent et encore aujourd’hui croire des choses inconcevables en France. De nombreux américains restent convaincus que le port des armes est une nécessité et ne n’osent pas penser à une réglementation, ils restent enfermés dans leurs idées. N’hésitez pas à me dire si je me trompe sur ce que je raconte sur les Etats Unis.

In response to Maxime, I think the idea of maximizing freedom in the U. S. is definitely a double-edged sword. On one side, it is good that everyone can express an opinion. On the other hand, there are some people in the U. S. who hold very extreme views on things which the vast majority disagrees with. This is a frequent debate in the U. S., especially now with the question of regulations for Twitter and Facebook. Do you exercise the most generous definition of freedom, and allow anybody, even those who are blatantly spreading hate, to continue? Or are these hateful people affecting the freedom of others by disseminating hate towards them? This is one part of the ongoing conversation about how we define freedom.

I think Maxine’s comment is interesting: does the importance we place on our various freedom prohibit us from progressing? I’m curious about how, if France is more restricted, French people regard freedom. Do you wish you had more of it?

In relation to the most recently posted comments, the divide regarding politics and ideologies in the United States is stronger than ever and has resulted from the most recent elections. And because of the large range of ideas and values between the two extremes, it has been very difficult to find a common ground at a national level, as well as at a conversational level. Responding to knhicks, I wouldn’t say the importance we place on freedom prohibits the US from progressing, however it indeeds delays the timeline of progress especially when finding a common ground is so difficult. I am also curious to see how France is different in terms of freedom of thought and if there is a such a political divide as there is in the US?

I think the point that knhicks is trying to make perhaps relates to the notion of political correctness and the obsession with not being offensive to anyone, ensuring that people always feel “safe.” In my opinion, this is a highly dangerous habit to have as a country. It restricts our ability to have honest conversations, devoid of any filtering or second guessing. This without a doubt, slows down progress. We need the understanding that there is no intention to offend and we need to place the larger goals ahead of the superficial goals to not offend.

Je trouve que le commentaire de abrito concernant notre attachement au discours “politiquement correct” est intéressant. Je pense également que cette habitude que nous avons nous permet en quelque sorte de ne pas paraître irrespectueux, impoli, et de s’exprimer tout en respectant mes normes sociles. Cependant, je trouve que c’est un moyen de ne pas les dire les choses directement telles qu’elles sont et de cacher d’une certaine façon. Bien sûr ceci est lié je pense à notre liberté d’expression, ce mode d’expression nous permettrait dans certains cas de tenir des propos normalement interdits (dénigrement de minorités, appel à la haine, racisme….) en les cachant derrière ce genre de discours qui paraît alors plus sournois. De ce point de vue, cette pratique peut effectivement être un frein au progrès, mais d’un autre côté, s’acccorder toutes les libertés sans se préoccuper de celle des autres ne serait pas non plus rétrograde comme le suggère knhicks ? Pour ma part, je pense que trop de liberté tue la liberté, respecter celle d’autrui est essentiel également, d’où peut-être l’utilité du politiquement correct utilisé pour respecter le plus grand nombre mais qui peut être vu comme de l’hypocrisie ou un frein à notre expression.

Je pense qu’en France il y a une forte liberté de pensée cependant elle est limitée dans certains cas extrême (heureusement à mon avis). Par exemple, en France il y a une façon de penser nationale quant aux évènements de la seconde guerre mondiale et ceux qui pensent différemment sur certains sujets comme les négationnistes peuvent être condamnés par la loi contrairement aux Etats-Unis.