If you have a high CQ (or a high level of cultural awareness and receptivity) you will naturally gravitate towards this course. If you aren't, just give the course a chance, as the lectures will help you in your travels overseas or simply to understand your foreign neighbours better.
I have travelled throughout the world and on my own quite frequently, so I can say that the advice given in the course is sound and well-grounded, and that Livermore's approach to the cultures of the world is quite accurate. There is a Spanish proverb that I love: "allá donde fueres, haz lo que vieres", which roughly translates, "wherever you go, do what the locals do"; this is, precisely, one of the main items of advice in the course.
I found the lectures most helpful to understand my life as an immigrant and I got a few ahas! and "that is it" from the first twelve lectures.That it is priceless.
The course is not a list of dos or do-nots, although some of those are provided at the end of each of the lectures devoted to individual cultural areas of the world.
THINGS I LIKED
> Livermore is a wonderful speaker: very engaging, has a great tone, pitch and voice inflection, very entertaining and open minded. He is also able to structure and present the material in a way that is both easy to understand, and easy to apply to our personal lives and cultural context. He gives many examples of his personal life, which perfectly apply to what he is explaining.
> Livermore explains why some clichés and stereotypes aren't true and what lies beneath them, and repeatedly reminds listeners that what he is saying is general and cannot be taken as a black-and-white description. We are not robots, we are part of our culture, but also individuals.
> Another point I loved, is the the importance the Livermore gives to food, the foods, how food is eaten, table manners, table customs, etc. to see the values and characteristics of any given culture. It is very true!
> I found Livermore especially good at individuating a simple element within a culture, one that might be apparently not relevant, and turn it into a symbol of the culture he is describing. One of the best examples, to me is how he uses the Matrioshka dolls to explain the characteristics of the Eastern European block, or Ikea for the Nordics. There are many examples of the same type.
> Livermore basically tell us to look at the world with fresh eyes, with less stereotypes and clichés, and to learn to appreciate the richness of ways of being and doing that humans exhibit, which aren't better or worse than any other, just different.
> I loved the fact that Livermore pointed out that the fact that a person belongs to a certain culture doesn't eliminate their individuality, so we cannot judge a culture by the behaviour of an individual, or vice versa.
> One of the best items of advice in the course is that we, Livermore included, have prejudices, and that the more we become aware of them, the better will be face other cultures and people from other cultures with the right attitude.
> We don't need to love or agree with the customs or culture of a given region or country, we need to respect them. It sounds simple, but basically I find most travellers I come across when I don't travel on my own doing just the contrary! Demanding. Disrespecting. Showing disgust because some people don't speak English or have a strong accent and a long list of grievances that are very painful to witness.
> This course has put Livermore in my author-to-follow radar. I liked a lot how he speaks, his attitude and the way he presents the material.
THINGS I MISSED
> One of the main divisions of cultures is the structure of family. Although Livermore mentions family structure when discussing some culture clusters, there is no specific lesson devoted to something as important. I thought that nuclear vs extended family was a lesson necessary and missing from the course!
> The same can be said of the role of women. Being a woman who has travelled on my own to many places, I can tell you that there is a huge difference between cultures where women are treated with respect disregarding whether they are married or not, and others where that is not the case. I missed a lesson on that. Too often, I find myself discussing things with male travellers about a given country or area, and we had different experiences basically because of our gender.
> The same can be say about cultures that are gay friendly or anti-gay. Some of my friends are gay, and you have to think about many things if you are married to a person of the same gender to certain areas or sleep in the same bed when going to certain parts of the world.
> Another element missing, although hinted during the discussion of cultural clusters, is the generational gap.The country where my parents lived in and the one I was born and grew up were two extremes regarding structure of the family, social hierarchy, power distance, open communication etc. That has been the source of great generational conflict. You have to be aware that if you visit my country and deal with old people you will find a set of values, and if you deal with me or people younger than me you will find another. So, I missed a bit of more emphasis on that.
> In a way, when I picked this course I wanted not only to improve my
CQ and to learn about other cultures, but also to learn how to respond
to people from other cultures who have a low CQ but utter very
offensive, albeit subtle, racist and very demeaning comments about my
culture and country of origin mostly based on prejudice and ignorance. I
consider responding well to those attacks and abuse part of improving
my CQ. However, this is the most difficult thing in the world to do when one
feels hurt or unfairly treated on the basis of nothing. I expected some
advice on that, but nothing is provided in the course. Perhaps this was
just an expectation, and not part of what having CQ is?
THINGS OFF
> Livermore's rosy version of the Anglo-Saxon culture and the British Empire. Really, I found offensive the consideration that the British collaborated with local population and ignoring how the British crushed local populations,, how they destroyed Native Americans, Aborigines and any other culture that wasn't willing to accept their domination. Collaboration happened in some places, but the locals were never considered equals or equal human beings. Do you remember Gandhi being thrown out of the train and tortured by the British? I leave it there.
> Livermore insists on us not using the information in the course to create stereotypes
or clichés. Yet, if you choose a Brazilian as an example of a person whonis always late or an Ukrainian as an example of rude customer service you are perpetuating the stereotypes! It doesn't matter that Livermore gives very successful explanations for those things.
> I tend to excuse non-historians in their historical digressions. However, Livermore has a great authority when speaking, and I found a bit dangerous that some of his statements can be taken at face value. Like the one mentioned above about the British colonisation, or the statement that the cultural cluster with more influence in the world has been the Anglo-Saxon... well, just if you are part of that group. If you dig into the structure of your psyche, you will be astonished at discovering that the Western World and part of the Middle East fed on the Greco-Roman culture, ways of being and thinking that persist in our world no matter you are a Norwegian, a German or an American. Then, the origin of civilisation is in Africa and in Far Middle East, not in Britain, USA nor even Australia. Christianity was born and spread from the Mediterranean, Islam from the Middle East, Buddhism from Asia.
> I find seriously ridiculous including Greece in the Eater European cluster. Yes, it is true that the Eastern Europeans fed on the Greek alphabet and Orthodox faith, but, 1/ Greeks are, re their ways of being, doing and thinking, basically Mediterranean and Southern European. 2/ They have never been nomads in the way that Mongolians or Central Asians have been. 3/They are in the Mediterranean, not in Central Europe or Asia. 4/ Greek Culture was the basis of the Roman Culture. 5/They have never been part of the USSR. 6/ Etc.!
> A few things are ignored to put Greek with the Eastern Europeans, and then Israel, a nomadic culture by definition, Arab in part is put with the Southern Europeans. Have you ever lived in the Middle East? Well, Israel fits there perfectly.
OTHER THINGS
> I was in Norway just a few months ago. The
Janteloven, the "you are nothing special" that seems to infuse Norwegian culture that Livermore mentions so many times is in gus lecture. Older people complain about the younger generations being cocky, showy and too individualistic, so unless you are over 60+, Janteloven is not as important as used to be. Also Livermore mentions that Norwegians aren't in the EU as if they are too good and don't need it, but the fact is that other Nordic countries are in the EU, Norway cannot enter the EU because, if they did, their economy would literally be crushed; and also Norwegians have been historically linked or dependent to/from other Nordic countries and they want to be just themselves and independent.
> Livermore mentions repeatedly that "Work to live instead of live to work" is the basis of the Nordic way of living. Well as much as of the Southern European way of living! Just to give a personal example, I worked in Dublin, in a hotel, many years ago, to pay for my English school; most of the workers were seasonal young Europeans, North-Africans and Asians. According to one of the housekeeping managers, the difference between the Southern Europeans and the rest was that they wanted and needed the money as much anybody else, but once they finished work they wanted to have fun and free time, while people from other areas would prefer the money and work in their days off.
> Calling some European cultures "paternalistic" is perpetuating an American stereotype, no matter Livermore says he is using the word with a different meaning than it is used normally. Why not using "egalitarian" or "caring"?
> The comments on the role of women in Southern Europe is also biased and probably true for 80-90y.o. people. Yet, in the year 2016, the index of domestic violence in Sweden and Australia is higher than in some Southern European countries; of course nobody will tell an Australian ir a Swedish that their men are one of most violent and therefore quite domineering over women.