In European school system, children are encouraged to learn how to reach conclusions through arguments. In order to reach a conclusion, Europeans usually asked themselves:
1. What are the facts? Do you believe these facts to be true?
2. How are the different facts related?
3. What is the conclusion?
Europeans assume an opinion is correct IF the underlying facts and reasoning are correct.
For instance, you say "Gambling advertising should be banned"
A typical european will say "Explain your reasoning".
You will then give the facts (“gambling is extremely harmful to society”) and the reasoning (“ads are designed to make gambling more attractive”). Finally, you reach the conclusion, (“Gamblings ads should be banned”).
This is basically a form of mental retroengineering.
Americans operate on a completely different mental structure.
In american schools, children are taught that anything is possible in the world that we live. Every individual is important and has great potential. Be confident in yourself and your skills.
In order to reach a conclusion, american children learn a concept called the marketplace of ideas.
Basically, just like you go shopping at the market for food. Except it’s for ideas.
The concept is that anyone can sell anything on the market of idea. Most americans assume that on the market of ideas, the best idea will naturally win customers.
When arguing for something ("I genuinely believe climate change is BS"), americans will rarely engage in mental retroengineering. They will state on the marketplace of ideas, their idea is as legitimate as any other.
As a consequence, when europeans and americans argue, they don’t operate on the same mental model.
I mean, in assigning the different outlooks to specifically Europe/America, sure, but they are far from entirely wrong, even there.
It’s more like America and its banana-republic/media-obsessed/victimized/allied/vassal lackeys versus saner parts of the world, or Rich vs Poor(which outlooks would be flipped in different areas), but beyond that and placing their post in YSK instead of somewhere more centered on conversation or argument, I still saw far more “defensive” comments than OP could bear any real blame for.
They’re not entirely wrong, of course, but they’re really stretching this simple stereotype into some deep difference in psychologies and assigning it to this “concept of a marketplace of idea vs. rationality and enlightenment” oversimplification.
Honestly, as a European person who’s been through bits of both school systems, it mainly sound like an uninformed rant from an American who’s angry with the state of the US and who’s completely idealized Europe as a result – even though their only vista into EU cultures is a bunch of titles of unread articles from the part of the US media they most agree with.
Which would be fine if they hadn’t worded what amounts to an overindulged shower thought in such a peremptory fashion.
Basically they behaved like their own stereotype of “american psychology”, which we do have quite enough of at home thank you very much.