green_goober

> I didn't come up with this rice farmer and cowboy example and I do not advocate for it as it is a complete nonsense

Sorry my bad, I thought you were the same person as the original commenter I was replying to.

I get your point, but your entire point is just built on speculation.

> As you can see from the above: Chinese and American students reacted very differently to a change (a difficult study exercise).

This is one framing. Another framing is that they have deference to authority. My hypothesis from the last post is not testable, it's just a narrative. It's not true. That was my point. You can frame history in whatever narrative makes you feel good but it's not scientific or true.

> Why different groups of people react differently to the change applied to them? It can be that they have different cultural memory about what is the outcome of a personal stand.

Your average Chinese student is more likely to have immediate family members who participated in revolutionary activity than just "being rice farmers". Whereas your average American is not very likely to have ancestors who participated in revolutionary activity (much less cowboys or adventurers). I am trying to illustrate that your initial assumption (Americans are always pushing boundaries, and the Chinese just live quiet lives) is totally inaccurate when taking into account which of the two countries has had more instability over the last two centuries. So in the "cultural memory" wouldn't Americans be the ones who are used to peaceful and stable lives?

Your point fails on another level, which is that both the rice farmer and cowboy example are stereotypes that serve to find an example without any serious analysis. It's a nice hand-wavy explanation that doesn't pass a quick smell test an also doesn't encourage the people who buy into the explanation to investigate any further.

I am saying that just because this explanation makes sense to you doesn't mean that it is correct.

My comment was sarcasm. OP is being a defeatist to anyone trying to explain that, yes, actually, you can measure these things. You don't need the media to spoonfeed you fake information.

Then I guess nothing is truly measureable and we should never attempt to make predictions.

Really? Wouldn't a better argument be that Americans have experienced constant positive social progress and stability, which reinforces the American mindset that "change is good". Whereas China has undergone nearly two centuries of instability, reinforcing the mindset that "stability is more important than pursuit of an ideal"?

I still don't even think that this is a super useful model because it is also reductive. But my point is just that you shouldn't paint broad brush strokes with bad history to find a reason for something. It's actually counter-productive. You can find post-hoc rationalization for anything. It doesn't make you right.

You can always use leading indicators (unemployment, inflation) to estimate future car sales, then extrapolate the EV market share based on current growth numbers. It's not perfect but it's not like large institutions somehow have a crystal ball. They are likely doing the same, just with better models.

This is really reductive to the point of being actually harmful when trying to understand the culture difference.

> a family history of 50 generations of tending to a rice field?

While yes, I am sure that there are many peasant people who have a "don't rock the boat" mindset, this is totally ignorant to the fact that China in the last two centuries alone was:

Invaded by Japan, invaded by every European colonial power, had a communist revolution, underwent massive industrialization, had the cultural revolution (that sort of kills the "docile student" narrative by itself), had multiple civil wars, fought in the Korean and Vietnam wars, fought against Russia, and recently in the last 40 years has opened up to international trade and market economies.

Compare the life stories of Donald Trump and Xi Xinping. Which of the two seems more adventurous? I'm not even trying to say one culture is better or worse, I am just trying to point out that your historical synopsis is not accurate and is really oversimplifying things.

You can always read financial reports like 10-Ks and see what the company says and what their number say. Numbers like that don't really lie.

The media has never been a "source of truth" at the best they act as watchdogs, at the worst they are propaganda. You can still find answers for yourself but good information has a time cost.