while at others, it is the relative opposite.
Thirdly, this signifies the beginning of the formation of a unified system of dynamic stereotypes in the agents of economic activity, among the elites around the world, that is, the beginning of the formation of a unified psychotype of the economically active population, the elite of the whole world. In the first place, the psychotype that is mimicked is the one that receives a greater return, and that return is defined in the GDP of the leading country of the world. But we now know that these are the financiers and people obtaining the best returns from financial operations. Usually these are the post-postresonators. In the second place, profit-wise, are the representatives of commerce.
This requires some explanation. If a person makes decisions on the basis of cumulative and factorial causes, then the uniformity of the action of cumulative and factorial causes should lead (under condition of uniformity of the agents of economic activity themselves and external conditions of their activity) to unified decisions. On the other hand, unified decisions are the result of the activity of similar causes. Social and economic conditions of the activities of daily living are increasingly leveling under globalization. The regulations of the WTO are also enabling this. These rules have been accepted by a large percentage of the nations of the world. Members of the WTO are realizing a larger and larger part of GDP through foreign trade. The greatest profit is obtained by enterprises and governments that actively participate in the international division of labor, in foreign trade, and in financial operations. The financial market brings the greatest revenue to those countries that set it up. Financing supplies production and commerce. The acceptance of international trade regulations is nothing other than the acceptance of unified conditions of commercial operations, a single lingua franca, common concepts, and so on. Without analyzing the factors that define success of foreign trade operations, it is impossible to depend on the success of many branches of production in a specific country, regardless of its socioeconomic structure. In that case, then specialists who ensure the success of foreign trade operations and provide financing with occupy an increasingly important niche within the economic elite of the society. And such people become an object of emulation. Largely they are emulated in places where they obtain education and where their children receive education, in the style of thinking, in the theories that they have mastered, in their external attributes, in their culture in the widest sense of the word… At the same time, each social, professional or economic group is a vehicle of specific dynamic stereotypes, of a specific psychotype. This process is objective and is not affected by the process of globalization. The differences between professional groups remain. Essential national differences are also maintained. But that’s just it: currently, the groups of people who make crucial decisions in finance and economics are in the process of forming a unified psychotype. For the time being this psychotype possesses the traits of elitism. Common dynamic stereotypes of economic and other behavior of the world elite are formed. By no means can just any representatives of a specific country join this group. Usually it is only those who obtain a large portion of the profit in finance and emulate the financial elite of the world.
One, two or three generations will be required to form unified dynamic stereotypes in the world’s elite. But this process today is very active.
So throughout the world they begin to wear suits rather than their national dress (although in some places both national and general European traditions are maintained simultaneously), they begin to watch the same films, to like the same writers, etc. And that is how the psychological basis for forming a unified culture is created. Of course, these processes are very complex. The dynamic stereotypes and cultural peculiarities of the poor are different from those of the elite; culture in India is different from that in the US. And these differences are leveled very slowly. While some will remain an extremely long time, let us say, the differences that are caused by the level of people’s income. All of this is true. But here the question is about the agents of economic activity, about successful businessmen, business leaders. This cohort of people is under the influence of both its own people (without them an effective national business cannot be organized), as well as the economic elite of the leaders of world governments (without whom it is difficult to become an effective merchant, or to be included in the international division of labor).
But it has always been this way. These processes have simply become more intensive, more synchronized. Culture, traditions, and customs of a country that is more developed economically are passed first of all to the elite, the economically active population of other countries. Russia is a classic example. In the past we have adopted wigs, knickers, knowledge of the major European languages, dance, music, literature, the details of architecture, the technology for creating ships, etc. from countries with a more developed economy and a different culture. Even earlier, merchants adopted each other’s customs, trade regulations, and rules for interacting. And so on the surface the merchants from different countries were similar to each other. Pantaloons came to Russia from Europe in the tracks of merchants, teachers, scholars, diplomats… The world has always been this way. The culture of the leading economic country of the world has been gradually transmitted, through the people that provide the connection between the economies of different countries, to other citizens. Culture was transmitted, as were dynamic stereotypes. And these changed initially in the merchants, then among the elites, the economically active population involved in trade and the international division of labor, and then in the whole nation.
Therefore, in the conditions of globalization, of uniformity of economic laws, norms, rules of foreign trade (and this uniformity is oriented toward the laws and norms of the leading economic country of the world), in conditions of open markets, the unified psychotype of the elite, the economically active population, begins to form. And it now is formed around the world financial elite. And the more the economic success of the country is tied to the international division of labor and foreign trade, the more intensively this process flows.
Here they are now buying expensive cars, yachts, mansions not only in old-fashioned capitalist countries, but also in a country consistently moving along the socialist path – China. Of course, for now in China this is only allowed for certain individuals as opposed to the entire population. But these individuals are emulated not by thousands or even millions, but rather by a billion people.
But the question of which psychotype the elite is closer to remains fundamental: to the psychotype of the world elite or to the psychotype of one’s own nation? The people may simply renounce those that do not appreciate their culture. The people may make a stand against these events, if their interests are affected. Finally, a revolution against the dominance of their elites may begin…
And if copying the psychotype of the elite of the leading country (group of countries) doesn’t make sense or is uninformed, then it will also be so over time. For we know that eventually the elite of the third generation, the elite with hysteroid traits, comes into power. This has also happened in the leading country of the world. If we follow its culture, differentiation in the society will increase, the rich will get richer, while the poor will become poorer… Such social systems are swept away from the historical arena by an angered populace. It has always been this way.
So what will the elite of different countries do when they understand or simply sense the growing protest of people: be transformed more under the influence of its nation or under the influence of the elite of the leading country of the world? Or think with their heads?
High-profile decision making (and this is underscored by the data in the chart) leads to the formation of a unified psychotype in the elite of various countries, but with time also to a unified ideology of the elite. A unified ideology and even its rudiments reassure the elite, since it creates the sensation (but sometimes merely the illusion) that everything is going in the same direction. For people with an external reference this is one of the most important arguments that everything is going right. And this sensation is in line with the feeling that the right decision has been made (but sometimes it merely substitutes a feeling of confidence in tomorrow). Countries that for now are not affected by this process, such as Iran or North Korea, provoke an ambiguous attitude toward themselves by the “global community.” These are also
