Of course it's a coincidence.
Man: Give me $1,000,000.
Me: I don't have $1,000,000.
Would it be fair to say I rejected the man's request for financial help?
Sure, AC. Sure.
We believe you, really! It was your, uh, "roommate" with the side-biz.
Yeah... because atheists regard Dawkins like Christians regard God.
Dawkins is not the atheist God, fella. He's more like our C.S. Lewis.
Wow, you must live a very sheltered existence. I would be flattered if someone said that about me. I don't want to represent the average.
Are you American?
Disclaimer: I am, too. Also flattered about our independent nature. Also undeniably American because I'm flattered by that.
I think they are saying, that in a couple small tests, many cultures, particularly less wealthy or more family oriented cultures, react differently than Americans, and therefore Americans make incredibly bad case studies.
They are saying that *culture* is what decides the results to these tests, and not inherent characteristics. Their entire point is that in these couple small tests the results differed everywhere. These "couple small tests" are tests we have traditionally held to be universal. We assume, for example, that in the same circumstances the $100-problem the author described people would universally settle on offering a "fair" 50/50 trade. People didn't expect that "fairness" was subjective even in something as perfectly quantifiable as cash. People didn't expect that "fair" is not something universally aspired-towards. People didn't expect that being "fair" to some cultures is a gift with a heavier burden than the gift itself.
What you concluded... yes, that's bullshit. The author had a good point, AND your post about the different reactions demonstrates that you came to the same conclusion, too.
How about two "infallible" coders who write the same function (let's say, in Perl) in two different ways - both of which produce the exact same result, processor usage, and runtime. Could they not disagree on coding style yet remain infallible?
No. One of the two did it wrong. If they produce the exact same result, proc usage, runtime, AND effort to create, they'd be the same functions.
Besides, the infallible coder could just name off binary digits, all the while perfectly confident that it will work.
I.e.: ____ lived 300 years means it was 300 years between ______ and someone worth mentioning. For 300 years they were the clan/tribe/house of ______, after which the next guy on the tree did something important enough that his descendants considered themselves the clan/tribe/house of that guy instead.