This map is not upside down

Terminology: “Global North/South” vs “Developed/Developing”

• Several commenters react strongly against “Global North/South,” calling it discriminatory, arbitrary, and politically loaded, especially for cases like Australia or Argentina being classed as “North” while poorer northern-hemisphere states are “South.”
• Others argue “developed/developing” is just as problematic: it presupposes a single endpoint (industrial, Western-style society) and hides histories of colonial extraction and structural dependency.
• Some point out that the original intent of “Global North/South” in critical theory was to expose imperial relations, not to rank virtue, but acknowledge it’s now used loosely and inconsistently (e.g., Singapore, China).
• There’s broader skepticism about any binary global grouping: countries rise and fall, have mixed indicators, and don’t map neatly onto race, latitude, or alliances.

Do People Associate “Up” with “Good”?

• Many cite language examples (“on top,” “moving up,” “low point,” “downhill from here”) and cognitive-linguistics work on orientational metaphors (good/up, bad/down, control/up, subject/down).
• Others counter with neutral or positive “down” metaphors (“down for it,” “get to the bottom of it”) and argue that cherry-picking phrases proves little.
• A linked psychological study on north–south housing preference is widely criticized for tiny, homogeneous samples and weak methodology; used as an example of broader doubts about social-psych “priming” style research.

Why North Is Usually “Up”

• Explanations offered:
  • Practical navigation: Polaris and the North Star, compasses, and noon shadows make north easy to fix.
  • Geography: ~2/3 of land and ~90% of population are in the northern hemisphere; centering and enlarging that region is convenient.
  • Historical contingency: printing, European maritime power, and earlier sailor conventions locked in north-up; earlier maps sometimes had east-up or south-up (e.g., medieval European, Chinese, Egyptian traditions).

South-Up and Other Alternative Maps

• Many like south-up maps as a simple way to unsettle habits, teach kids geography, or highlight that all orientations and centering choices are conventions.
• Others find the “this reveals hidden prejudice” framing overwrought; to them it’s just a 180° rotation, less striking than changing projection or centering.
• Several argue projections (e.g., Mercator vs Robinson vs Dymaxion/AuthaGraph) and centering (Atlantic vs Pacific vs polar) have more substantive effects on perceived importance and size (especially Africa, Russia) than the up/down choice itself.

Moralizing, Bias, and Overreach

• One camp reads the article as implicitly condemning north-up as morally suspect (“up = good, north = rich”), seeing it as part of a trend of over-interpreting small psychological effects.
• Another camp says this is overreaction: the piece merely notes subtle associations and invites perspective-taking, not guilt; resistance is read as discomfort at challenging defaults.
• There’s a meta-thread about how much such cognitive framing actually shapes geopolitics versus being mostly academic or symbolic.