NationStates Jolt Archive

Got this from today's newspaper...
An English study lead by Richard Lynn from the Ulster University, in which he compared countless IQ tests from many countries, revealed interesting results:

Germans and Dutch are at the top with an average IQ of 107.
They're closely followed by the also very smart Swedish with 104.
Italians are still quite clever with an average of 102.
Austrians and Swiss are right after them with 101.
Then, the British come with a round 100.
Further down are still the Spaniards (98), the Russians (96) and the French (94).
Towards the bottom of the list, there's Turkey with only 90.

Where did Norway, Finland, the USA and Japan rank?

Yea, but the UU is full of knuckle dragging reprobates. As somebody on another forum said, it was done "in between their intermediate crayon and advanced 11+". I mean, my sister went there.
I'm not entirely serious. I'm also glad my sister barely knows how to work the internet.

Oh, you knew I'd have to click on this. :D

But yeah, I don't know, that's a bit fishy, to say the least. Seems rather unlikely that there should be any kind of difference in intelligence between different peoples. I call bullshit on that study (just because I can, really :p).

Also, "107"? That's not even very high, is it?

Ah IQ tests. Those things that test very little to do with actual overall intelligence and rather how good at doing tests you are.

Which explains the results - those countries probably have a better education system, but saying their citizens are naturally more intelligent because of some racial superiourity is silly.

That Professor got suspended the other week for saying that black people had lower IQs than white people - how is this study any different to that?

I don't mean to sound like an old geezer in the corner going "why is racism ok when it's against white people?" but it does seem this is a bit like that to me...

Yea, but the UU is full of knuckle dragging reprobates. As somebody on another forum said, it was done "in between their intermediate crayon and advanced 11+". I mean, my sister went there.

Snap.


I'm not entirely serious. I'm also glad my sister barely knows how to work the internet.

:p

But yeah, I don't know, that's a bit fishy, to say the least. Seems rather unlikely that there should be any kind of difference in intelligence between different peoples. I call bullshit on that study (just because I can, really :p).
You put it in a much better way than my attempt. :p

Oh, you knew I'd have to click on this. :D

But yeah, I don't know, that's a bit fishy, to say the least. Seems rather unlikely that there should be any kind of difference in intelligence between different peoples. I call bullshit on that study (just because I can, really :p).

Also, "107"? That's not even very high, is it?
It is if we're talking about average IQ.

But yeah, I don't know, that's a bit fishy, to say the least. Seems rather unlikely that there should be any kind of difference in intelligence between different peoples. I call bullshit on that study (just because I can, really :p).
Differing social attitudes towards education and difference between educational systems themselves? This apparently affects IQ.

Aha!! I always knew I was smarter then the rest.
Got this from today's newspaper...
An English study lead by Richard Lynn from the Ulster University, in which he compared countless IQ tests from many countries, revealed interesting results:

Germans and Dutch are at the top with an average IQ of 107.
They're closely followed by the also very smart Swedish with 104.
Italians are still quite clever with an average of 102.
Austrians and Swiss are right after them with 101.
Then, the British come with a round 100.
Further down are still the Spaniards (98), the Russians (96) and the French (94).
Towards the bottom of the list, there's Turkey with only 90.

Do you have a link by any chance?

Where did Norway, Finland, the USA and Japan rank?
Yes, how did they do?

i think the U.S. average IQ is 98...

damn rednecks fault...:p

Where did Norway, Finland, the USA and Japan rank?
The article only mentioned the countries I've already mentioned, so I can't tell you...

@SI:
98? But only *without* the Rednecks!

You put it in a much better way than my attempt. :pYeah, well, that's because my country is smaaater than yours. Duh. :p


Differing social attitudes towards education and difference between educational systems themselves? This apparently affects IQ.Yeah, but Germany consistently sucks in the comparative education studies (PISA, anyone?), so that wouldn't really make much sense.

Yeah, but Germany consistently sucks in the comparative education studies (PISA, anyone?), so that wouldn't really make much sense.
And Finland is on the top of the list. So you have a point. It is possible I suppose though that over time, German attitudes toward education and so on have led to a slightly higher IQ on average.

The article only mentioned the countries I've already mentioned, so I can't tell you...

Convenient...I would expect them to be included.

Germans and Dutch are at the top with an average IQ of 107.


http://www.leftlanenews.com/wp-images/media/feb22pimp.jpg
Representing Deutschland, yo.

(I'm not German even by ancestry, just thought that was appropriate.)

The article only mentioned the countries I've already mentioned, so I can't tell you...

@SI:
98? But only *without* the Rednecks!
Which paper was it?

They is?

Haha, this was done by the same guy (Richard Lynn) who claimed whites are more intelligent than blacks and that males are more intelligent than females. He also measured brain volume. Sounds like someone's about the get the calipers out. I think we had dismissed phrenology as bogus by the beginning of the 20th century.

Convenient...I would expect them to be included.
And (un?)surprisingly, the UU website (http://www.ulst.ac.uk) doesn't mention the study at all...

Here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html)'s a Times article on it.
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,282652,00.gif
(from that article)

Interesting how "Ireland" is there as well as "British Isles". I suppose we are to assume that the Times doesn't know the name of the country it is published in.

And (un?)surprisingly, the UU website (http://www.ulst.ac.uk) doesn't mention the study at all...

Here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html)'s a Times article on it.
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,282652,00.gif
(from that article)

Interesting how "Ireland" is there as well as "British Isles". I suppose we are to assume that the Times doesn't know the name of the country it is published in.
I wonder how accurate its figures are though...I would well venture that average IQ differs from nation to nation, but then I'd have to see a serious study on the matter.

Which paper was it?The Times. A paper owned by News Corporation. Pfft. Just google 'study english german and ulster'.

Interesting how "Ireland" is there as well as "British Isles". I suppose we are to assume that the Times doesn't know the name of the country it is published in.

Again.

Fuckers.

That always happens. :mad:

I wonder how accurate its figures are though...I would well venture that average IQ differs from nation to nation, but then I'd have to see a serious study on the matter.
Is the IQ test not meant to theoretically bring an average of 100?

Haha, this was done by the same guy (Richard Lynn) who claimed whites are more intelligent than blacks and that males are more intelligent than females. He also measured brain volume. Sounds like someone's about the get the calipers out. I think we had dismissed phrenology as bogus by the beginning of the 20th century.
Ahem, I actually had to bold that just so everybody will see it.

What a prick.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, explains everything you never wanted to know about the make-up of this particular ranking.

Thanks for posting that, ID!

Ahem, I actually had to bold that just so everybody will see it.

What a prick.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, explains everything you never wanted to know about the make-up of this particular ranking.

Thanks for posting that, ID!

Ah fuck, you beat me to it. :p

Is the IQ test not meant to theoretically bring an average of 100?
Is it? I have no idea, and I doubt it. Apparently anything between 90 and 110 is around average, so perhaps, but that still leaves a margin of 20 points.

Again.

Fuckers.

That always happens. :mad:
People always leave Ireland out of the British Isles?

It's difficult to determine the intelligence of several peoples, since often different methods are used and they may not be totally compatible. Also, the IQ scale is a sliding scale, that is 100 points is always the average, not an absolute measure of quantity.

There may be difference amongst races, though, but I suspect this will have more to do with other factors, like nutrition and income, than with something intrinsic to the race, like skin or hair color. And even thought there may be average differences between populations, individual differences still account for more.

A good question would be, is IQ really all that important? An old acquaintance of mine once defined intelligence as the capacity to adapt to the environment. He argued that this would allow the individual to get the most from the surroundings and have a better, happier life, even though the definition is at odds with those used by most in the field and can't be measured by standard tests.

So, even if there are differences in the average IQ of different nations, economic strata, races, etc. how important is that in the end and should policies be formed around those facts?

There may be difference amongst races, though, but I suspect this will have more to do with other factors, like nutrition and income, than with something intrinsic to the race, like skin or hair color. And even thought there may be average differences between populations, individual differences still account for more.
Then we are talking about cultures, not ethnicities. And I agree.

So, even if there are differences in the average IQ of different nations, economic strata, races, etc. how important is that in the end and should policies be formed around those facts?
No, but it may better help us understand how intelligence works.

People always leave Ireland out of the British Isles?

No, people *coughenglishcough* always lump Ireland in with Britain.

"Ah, sure. They're all the same anyway"- attitude. It begins to grate after a while.

For instance:

In a British program about Samuel L Jackson and Colin Farrell’s lastest movie SWAT presented by British presenter, Kate Thornton, the following exchange occured:
Thornton: What was it like working with Colin (Farrell), cos he
is just so hot in the U.K. right now?

Jackson: He’s pretty hot in the U.S. too.
Thornton: Yeah, but he is one of our own.
Jackson: Isn’t he from Ireland?
Thornton: Yeah, but we can claim him cos Ireland is beside us.
Jackson: You see that’s your problem right there. You British keep claiming people that don’t belong to you. We had that problem here in America too, it was called slavery.

No, people *coughenglishcough* always lump Ireland in with Britian.

"Ah, sure. They're all the same anyway"- attitude.
Nonsense. You can't claim a single programme as 'always.'

Nonsense. You can't claim a single programme as 'always.'

Single programme?

From the Times again 2 weeks ago- (paraphrase) "Stunning South African beauty Charlize Theron has denied rumours about splitting up from her British beau, Stuart Townshend" - He is also Irish.

Maybe it is just the Times, but I get that alot from talking to English people too.

"Oh, you know, back on the mainland...."
*We were in Cork*
"Mainland?"
"Oh, Britain you know?"
"Riight."

Sky News has a nice habit of referring to Ireland as a 'Home Nation' in sports.

Also, "107"? That's not even very high, is it?

107 is quite high, especially if it's an average value. 100 is by definition "normal", from 115 you're highly intelligent, with < 85 you're... let's say not very smart.

And as mentioned above, Germany's education system sucks compared to other European countries.

So don't take this study too serious.

And as mentioned above, Germany's education system sucks compared to other European countries.

So don't take this study too serious.
Is the educational system all that matters though? I am wary about this study myself, although I am sure cultural differences, especially long-term ones, have an influence on IQ beyond a person's genetic makeup.

Vee arr ze tschampyonss
vee arr ze tschampyonss
no time for styoopitt
kohs vee arr ze tschampyons...

I'm with those who say the study is bull. Flawed in every respect.

No, people *coughenglishcough* always lump Ireland in with Britain.

"Ah, sure. They're all the same anyway"- attitude. It begins to grate after a while.

For instance:

In a British program about Samuel L Jackson and Colin Farrell’s lastest movie SWAT presented by British presenter, Kate Thornton, the following exchange occured:
Thornton: What was it like working with Colin (Farrell), cos he
is just so hot in the U.K. right now?

Jackson: He’s pretty hot in the U.S. too.
Thornton: Yeah, but he is one of our own.
Jackson: Isn’t he from Ireland?
Thornton: Yeah, but we can claim him cos Ireland is beside us.
Jackson: You see that’s your problem right there. You British keep claiming people that don’t belong to you. We had that problem here in America too, it was called slavery.
Haha, awesome:D

Single programme?

From the Times again 2 weeks ago- (paraphrase) "Stunning South African beauty Charlize Theron has denied rumours about splitting up from her British beau, Stuart Townshend" - He is also Irish.

Sky News has a nice habit of referring to Ireland as a 'Home Nation' in sports.
That could have something to do with the fact that there is not only a significant Irish population in Britain, but that Sky News broadcasts in Ireland.

I know the two get lumped together an awful lot, but that's because our two nations are so obviously seperate from mainland Europe (geographically speaking). I don't think it's anything to get particually upset about - it's hardly the end of the world when someone makes such a minor mistake.

107 is quite high, especially if it's an average value. 100 is by definition "normal", from 115 you're highly intelligent, with < 85 you're... let's say not very smart.

And as mentioned above, Germany's education system sucks compared to other European countries.

So don't take this study too serious.

Oh, I won't, because - apart from common sense - let's have another look at what The Infinite Dunes dug up:

Haha, this was done by the same guy (Richard Lynn) who claimed whites are more intelligent than blacks and that males are more intelligent than females. He also measured brain volume. Sounds like someone's about the get the calipers out. I think we had dismissed phrenology as bogus by the beginning of the 20th century.

And no, I have absolutely no shame in making it red, either, because I know how NS discussions can, at times, completely overlook the most basic points that have already been made. :p

Ahem, I actually had to bold that just so everybody will see it.

What a prick.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, explains everything you never wanted to know about the make-up of this particular ranking.

Thanks for posting that, ID!

Ah fuck, you beat me to it. :p Woo! First time I ever been thanked for any of most posts. It may have taken a 1,000 of them, but it was worth it. :D

Woo! First time I ever been thanked for any of most posts. It may have taken a 1,000 of them, but it was worth it. :D
Oh, it just got better - you got highlighted in red! :p

That could have something to do with the fact that there is not only a significant Irish population in Britain, but that Sky News broadcasts in Ireland.

What the fuck has that got to do with anything ? BBC broadcasts in India, but you don't hear them going
"And here's some local news from around Britain.. I mean... Gujarat"



I know the two get lumped together an awful lot, but that's because our two nations are so obviously seperate from mainland Europe (geographically speaking).
Yeah? And? Does it kill people on one island to recognise that everyone on the other one DON'T BELONG TO THEM?

I don't think it's anything to get particually upset about - it's hardly the end of the world when someone makes such a minor mistake.

Canadians get (rightly) pissed when someone calls them American (meaning from the US)

Don't mind if I and every news outlet start calling you Albanian then right? I mean, so what? Its not something to gt all in a knot about? :p

Yeah? And? Does it kill people on one island to recognise that everyone on the other one DON'T BELONG TO THEM?

Well, not everyone. Just over 2/3 :p

Well, not everyone. Just over 2/3 :p

:D I had to check that before I posted! :p

What the fuck has that got to do with anything ? BBC broadcasts in India, but you don't hear them going
"And here's some local news from around Britain.. I mean... Gujarat"

Yeah? And? Does it kill people on one island to recognise that everyone on the other one DON'T BELONG TO THEM?

Canadians get (rightly) pissed when someone calls them American (meaning from the US)

Don't mind if I and every news outlet start calling you Albanian then right? I mean, so what? Its not something to gt all in a knot about? :p
I'm sure the world would be a much better place if everyone got as wound up over this. I mean, let a case of mistaken identity stand? Hell, no! Let's shout about it, and make it into the biggest problem in the world!

People attribute British people to foreign nations as well, such as calling a British person Australian. It gets a raised eyebrow, not an apocalyptic shouting match.

Don't mind if I and every news outlet start calling you Albanian then right? I mean, so what? Its not something to gt all in a knot about? :p
Frankly, I don't know what the problem is. All you Europeans are the same anyway.

:D

I'm sure the world would be a much better place if everyone got as wound up over this. I mean, let a case of mistaken identity stand? Hell, no! Let's shout about it, and make it into the biggest problem in the world!

People attribute British people to foreign nations as well, such as calling a British person Australian. It gets a raised eyebrow, not an apocalyptic shouting match.

Because it's not being done to you.

Constantly.

There are 2 seperate identities. It would be nice to recognise that fact from time to time when referring to a neighbouring state.

Frankly, I don't know what the problem is. All you Europeans are the same anyway. :D

That, I can live with. We are a part of Europe by choice (I mean the EU in that regard)- we are not a part of Britain and it simply wouldn't kill 'reputable' news outlets to recognise that fact from time to time.

People attribute British people to foreign nations as well, such as calling a British person Australian. It gets a raised eyebrow, not an apocalyptic shouting match.
Yea, but the UK didn't have 500 years of occupation and oppression and then fight a bloody War of Independence from Australia....

Because it's not being done to you.

Constantly.

There are 2 seperate identities. It would be nice to recognise that fact from time to time when referring to a neighbouring state.
Well, quite frankly, it's their stupidity, not yours, and you should view it as such. Why get worked up about someone who can't tell the difference between two countries?

Plus, I've just realised what you originally said, anyway. Sky News? They're terrible for accuracy. Don't you know that they're the sister station of Fox News?

Yea, but the UK didn't have 500 years of occupation and oppression and then fight a bloody War of Independence from Australia....
But then neither did current day Irish folk, nor did I suppress them. Why has this anymore relevance than say, calling all modern Germans Nazi's?

But then neither did current day Irish folk, nor did I suppress them. Why has this anymore relevance than say, calling all modern Germans Nazi's?

Yoo votch ze fokk out!

(Heh)

Well, quite frankly, it's their stupidity, not yours, and you should view it as such. Why get worked up about someone who can't tell the difference between two countries?

Why get worked up about influential people/institutions (that broadcast to millions) being stupid and unable to tell difference between two countries...

Hmmm....

Wait, wait... I can get this....


Plus, I've just realised what you originally said, anyway. Sky News? They're terrible for accuracy. Don't you know that they're the sister station of Fox News?

Yet so odd the way they are both so influential. ;)

Hmmm....

Wait, wait... I can get this....



Yet so odd the way they are both so influential. ;)
I remember having Sky on when the whale got stuck in the Thames. They 'broke' the news story that "another whale had been found in the Thames," went to a correspondent who confirmed that yes, it was defintely another whale...and then had to say half an hour later that actually, it wasn't a whale at all, sorry about that.

They're more interested in putting sensationalist rubbish on screen than checking their facts first.

Why I watch BBC News 24. :p

Yea, but the UK didn't have 500 years of occupation and oppression and then fight a bloody War of Independence from Australia....

Yes, but we were only doing what the pope told us to. If anything, people's beef with this should be with the vatican. Not westminster.

Swedish? Meh.

In reply to all the casters of doubts upon the story:

The matter has been printed.
In the Times.
The Times of London - not some imitation.

Which settles the matter as conclusively as anything on earth :cool:

You see, the foreigners MAY have the brains - but Britain has the Times.

In reply to all the casters of doubts upon the story:

The matter has been printed.
In the Times.
The Times of London - not some imitation.

Which settles the matter as conclusively as anything on earth :cool:

You see, the foreigners MAY have the brains - but Britain has the Times.Yes, it was published in the Times of London and NOT the Guardian of Manchester. I think I've said enough... Well actually, if it had been published in the Telegraph then that would have been even worse for the credibility of the study.

Yes, it was published in the Times of London and NOT the Guardian of Manchester. I think I've said enough... Well actually, if it had been published in the Telegraph then that would have been even worse for the credibility of the study.

Qute so. And if I may be forgiven for a bit of plagiaring of the works of John Wyndham:

'Mind you, News of the World did report the Alien Invasion - the first real alien invasion ever. Unfortunately, as it was their 4th Alien Invasion of the month, it did nor register too well.'

I don't care about the IQ results of a bunch of idiots. Because, in reality, I'm Chuck Norris :D

Where did Norway, Finland, the USA and Japan rank?
Finland was remarkably lower than Sweden with average of 98 if I remember correctly. Either Norway or Denmark got the same.

But then neither did current day Irish folk, nor did I suppress them. Why has this anymore relevance than say, calling all modern Germans Nazi's?

My great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather was killed in a raid on his peaceful Celtic village by raiding Irish. I'm still so traumatised by it and all the opression they suffered - those evil modern day Irish have surely inherited the blame somehow. Do I get to spout a load of racism against the Irish now? ^^

Germans and Dutch are at the top with an average IQ of 107.
*gasp*

Hitler was right!




:rolleyes:

*gasp*

Hitler was right!




:rolleyes:


Anyway... if I now claim that the average German is more intelligent than the average Turk... does that make me a racist, prejudiced, or well-informed?

Somewhere in the back of my mind is the suspicion that the belief that all men are created equal is nonsense, but that no self-respecting democratic state can allow people to openly doubt that belief.

Anyway... if I now claim that the average German is more intelligent than the average Turk... does that make me a racist, prejudiced, or well-informed?
Well, it's a difference of 17 points according to this study... how about "all of the above"? :D

Well, it's a difference of 17 points according to this study... how about "all of the above"? :D


Impossible. Prejudiced and well-informed would appear to be mutually exclusive.

Yeah? And? Does it kill people on one island to recognise that everyone on the other one DON'T BELONG TO THEM?

I don't think it's about trying to claim Ireland as a possession. It's just that with the conflict and overlap between geographical and political descriptions, there's no word anymore to describe the inhabitants of the british isles, who despite their historical and political differences share a great deal in terms of culture, language etc. The closest term I can think of is 'British', if only in terms of 'coming from the British Isles'. I'm sure if someone could think of a snappy term to describe this, this issue would be much rareer.

This is exactly what I was talking about:

It's just that with the conflict and overlap between geographical and political descriptions, there's no word anymore to describe the inhabitants of the british isles,....
There never was a single word to describe them- the title of the state was "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" (later Great Britain and Northern Ireland) If everyone was British then there would have been no need to point out the difference in the very title of said country! By the state definition- the two's identity were seperate.

Calling someone British only refers to those from Britain- no where else.

who despite their historical and political differences share a great deal in terms of culture, language etc.

We really don't. At. All.


The closest term I can think of is 'British', if only in terms of 'coming from the British Isles'. I'm sure if someone could think of a snappy term to describe this, this issue would be much rareer.

The 'closest' term?! Is that what your education has boiled down to over there? "Ah so long as it's in the rough area, it's alright. Sure, they're all the same anyway!" :rolleyes:

The accurate terms are: Irish and British. Two peoples. Two countries. Two races. Two seperate identities.

We really don't. At. All.

Yeah! Like Mexicans and Salvadorians!

Anyway... if I now claim that the average German is more intelligent than the average Turk... does that make me a racist, prejudiced, or well-informed?
If you claim so based on mere fact, without any bias either way, it would make you well-informed.

Somewhere in the back of my mind is the suspicion that the belief that all men are created equal is nonsense, but that no self-respecting democratic state can allow people to openly doubt that belief.
Oh, you mean actually acknowledging that each human is different? Why, that would be Cardinal Sin you speak of. :rolleyes:

Yeah! Like Mexicans and Salvadorians!

Well, I was going more for Mexicans and Portuguese.

Well, I was going more for Mexicans and Portuguese.
So, Mexican and Salvadorian are the same? :confused:

Somewhere in the back of my mind is the suspicion that the belief that all men are created equal is nonsense, but that no self-respecting democratic state can allow people to openly doubt that belief.
While all people aren't made equal, I sincerely doubt that the difference can be easily pegged on nationality. Surely you don't expect me to believe that in the 48 hours that passed between May 9 and 11th of 1871 the people of Loraine and Alsace had a 10% increase in brain mass.

This is exactly what I was talking about:


There never was a single word to describe them- the title of the state was "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" (later Great Britain and Northern Ireland) If everyone was British then there would have been no need to point out the difference in the very title of said country! By the state definition- the two's identity were seperate.

Calling someone British only refers to those from Britain- no where else.



We really don't. At. All.



The 'closest' term?! Is that what your education has boiled down to over there? "Ah so long as it's in the rough area, it's alright. Sure, they're all the same anyway!" :rolleyes:

The accurate terms are: Irish and British. Two peoples. Two countries. Two races. Two seperate identities.

I don't see why you're so rabidly antagonistic to the thought of there being a word to describe the Irish and British together, not in terms of being part of the United kingdom, but in terms of being part of an island group with close connections, along the same lines you can refer to Scandinavian countries, or even to North America when describing Canada and the US.
Like it or not the British and the Irish are closely linked in language and culture, I don't even see what you are trying to achieve by denying it. Maybe between English and Irish, it's not so easy to see, but between Irish and Scottish and Welsh and especially Northern Irish the two countries do have a lot in common.

My whole point was that there isn't a politically neutral term to describe it (ie. one that didn't have 'British' or derivations thereof in the title), which if it existed would prevent these sorts of histrionics. And given that Ireland is part of the British Isles if only geographically, and so by extension is a 'British Isle' or at least part of one, then that at the moment is the closest to being a phrase to describe the two countries without any of the sense of ownership that you want to ascribe to it. I'm not saying that it's right that people describe the two countries in these terms, I'm just trying to explain where the slip comes about.

Edit: Oh and by the way - the reason why it is the United kingdom of Great britain and Northern Ireland isn't because only the main land mass is Britain and everything else isn't. The term 'Great Britain' is used to describe the largest island in the British island grouping and it's a fairly common means of nomenclature in groups of islands.

But then neither did current day Irish folk, nor did I suppress them. Why has this anymore relevance than say, calling all modern Germans Nazi's?
Well, no, but the the Free State (not Republic) only came into existence in 1921 after the 5 year War of Independence, so many adults would have heard stories from their grandparents etc, and this has formed a part of the historical culture still passed on to their children.

Well, no, but the the Free State (not Republic) only came into existence in 1921 after the 5 year War of Independence, so many adults would have heard stories from their grandparents etc, and this has formed a part of the historical culture still passed on to their children.
True, but again, I have been told stories about the Second World War, and don't go around trying to shoot down German planes.

I think we need to respect our past and learn from it, but continuing to fight over old grievances only leads to repeating its suffering.

True, but again, I have been told stories about the Second World War, and don't go around trying to shoot down German planes.

I think we need to respect our past and learn from it, but continuing to fight over old grievances only leads to repeating its suffering.
And people in the Republic don't go around trying to attack any British they see.

However, with respect to WW2, you do still get the "we won the war" attitude (mainly from the English), and still among the young.

And people in the Republic don't go around trying to attack any British they see.
Yep, but the original objection was about the Irish being mistakenly called British; I said this was simply a sign of the ignorance of the people doing it, and hardly a cause for concern, and you replied that the history makes it offensive. My reply was based on the idea of letting bygones be bygones; and, like I originally said, treat it as a stupid thing to say by the person saying it, rather than a cause for anger.

Yep, but the original objection was about the Irish being mistakenly called British; I said this was simply a sign of the ignorance of the people doing it, and hardly a cause for concern, and you replied that the history makes it offensive. My reply was based on the idea of letting bygones be bygones; and, like I originally said, treat it as a stupid thing to say by the person saying it, rather than a cause for anger.
I've never seen any anger about it, usually the response is "well, we'd actually prefer if you didn't call it that..." and it's left at that.

I've never seen any anger about it, usually the response is "well, we'd actually prefer if you didn't call it that..." and it's left at that.
lol, well I got 'shouted' at earlier. :p

I do understand it being an irritating point, I just don't understand it being something to get that upset about.

lol, well I got 'shouted' at earlier. :p

I do understand it being an irritating point, I just don't understand it being something to get that upset about.
Well, let's face it, since when was NS General representative of the society and culture in any country? :p

Well, let's face it, since when was NS General representative of the society and culture in any country? :p
Touché :p

lol, well I got 'shouted' at earlier. :p

I do understand it being an irritating point, I just don't understand it being something to get that upset about.

I do apologise :p

It is exactly as Nadkor put it: "well, we'd actually prefer if you didn't call it that..."

99.9% of people would not make such a big fuss over it.

It was merely because those recent experiences I have had all came within a few days of each other, and well... they didn't really portray our neighbours as that 'forward thinking' ;)

I realise ignorance transcends borders. :D

bump