101–110 of 540 posts
> Psychologically, we tend to view things nearer the top as ‘good’ and those lower as ‘bad.’ This, of course, is the point of the article. It was so predictable that it made me wonder: who is telling me that top is good and lower is bad? The articles themselves.
Up-and-coming.
Top-of-the-line.
I could go on, but I don't want to get you down.
1. The sun (and moon and planets and many stars) rises in the east.
2. The east represents what is to come. This manifests in natural (day / night cycles) and cultural (timezones / dateline) aspects.
3. Orienting a map to such an easy to locate (day or night) direction requires no compass or other technology.
4. Orienting a map with such an impactful direction at the top creates a strong literal connection to the territory it represents, rather than to a part-abstracted direction that must be identified and agreed.
Fun fact: if you rotate a regular map (north on top) counterclockwise, you’ll notice the American continent looks like a duck. Even more fun fact: once you’ve seen this, you cannot unsee it. It’s a duck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First time seeing this and it feels so offensive. I'm somewhat okay with the term developed and developing countries, though not too much [1]. But this just feels discriminatory. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factfulness
Offensive how? "Developing" and "things aren't so bad" are offensive because they obfuscate imperialist relations. That's the position of the theorists who use "Global North"/"South", anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South#... What do you mean by discriminatory?
A layman who is not familiar with the reasons behind Global North/South would not think about imperialist relations. I'm somewhat okay with "developing" because the term is easier to understand: some countries are less developed than others. Plus the terms are fluid. If a country becomes developed enough then they switch labels.
Global North/South makes no sense at all, again from a layman's perspective. From the original story:
> Psychologically, we tend to view things nearer the top as ‘good’ and those lower as ‘bad.’
When I see Australia in the southern hemisphere being characterised as "North", I think that the creator of this term is discriminating against countries they consider inferior. There is no room for growth here. A country being characterised as "South" will always be as such, because intuitively we know we can't switch geographies.
90% of the world's population and 68% of the land mass being in the northen hemisphere is probably a good enough reason to put north up top on a map.
…why? Why is it better for it to be in the upper half of the map than the lower half?
Maps should have east at the top for a few reasons: 1. The sun (and moon and planets and many stars) rises in the east. 2. The east represents what is to come. This manifests in natural (day / night cycles) and cultural (timezones / dateline) aspects. 3. Orienting a map to such an easy to locate (day or night) direction requires no compass or other technology. 4. Orienting a map with such an impactful direction at th…
Also the North Star being a thing is quite influential.
90% of the world's population and 68% of the land mass being in the northen hemisphere is probably a good enough reason to put north up top on a map.
Disagree completely. Your map should be bottom-heavy for stability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South
First time seeing this and it feels so offensive. I'm somewhat okay with the term developed and developing countries, though not too much [1]. But this just feels discriminatory. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factfulness
Nope. That one is the worst of the choices.