Thoughts on the less "PC" culture in China

[Demonic_Duck]

Petition to rename this thread to "the fruitless arguments about religion and other things thread".

 

I'm also willing to take bets on how many pages it runs to. I'm thinking at least 20, unless it gets locked first.

[Silent]

 

I mean, I understand your point, but would you really want to, say, go back to 17th century technology and thinking? It's a valid idea if you value that kind of society, but most people like the modern age.

Whether I want or do not want to go back to 17th century technology and thinking is irrelevant. The point I try to get across is that you should use the right measure stick to make judgements. It's very easy to judge against your own frame of reference, but such judgements are irrelevant for someone with a different frame of reference. With conflicting views you have to retreat to some common ground, a common frame of reference from where you both agree and can can commonly deduce where the differences come from and who (if any) is wrong or right. Just stating that the bill of rights is better then religion and expecting others to concede is imho a foolish idea.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

But in that instance you suggested that you can access objective truth and most Chinese people can't.

 

I'm not sure what you are referring to. I don't think I mentioned Chinese people being unable to access objective truth. Are you talking about when I was saying they had biases? I was just agreeing with another poster that every population has its own set of biases, on average.

 

 

But I pointed it out because it came up in the middle of a discussion about the too-PC crew being so sure it's right that alternative points of view are suppressed.

 

Yeah, I was bringing that up partially to demonstrate how easy it is to fall into suppressing people you don't agree with and I was partially just being an ass. If I am being completely honest, I am guilty of enjoying humor at other people's expense from time to time. I think most people do, but probably not quite as much as I do. I know most people certainly won't admit it. It's sadistic and shitty, no question. What I mean by that is some of the stuff that is said in, say, the atheist community on forums and in public is funny and tends to get me riled up. I'm not as extreme as they are, but some of the stuff they say is flat-out hilarious and I can't help but laugh and occasionally catch some of their enthusiasm. In another example, Bill Maher recently agreed with someone that Americans are stupid, and then showed a montage of him saying that repeatedly over the years on various news programs. Was it mean? Sure, but it was hilarious. As a result of engaging in all of that humor, I sometimes lose my sensitivity and say emotionally charged things without even realizing that it pisses people off.

 

 

As for too much relativism: no, I'm saying that if you act in a way which you're sure is correct, there might be some people -- no matter how hard you reason and how long they try to understand you -- who will think that you're wrong. Because people are different. We're not all the same. That's another modern myth.

 

Agreed. Sam Harris is an example of someone who argues very well but is such a prick that only the most cynical assholes can stand to listen to him. Guys like him and Dawkins are great for getting people on the anti-religion bandwagon, but they aren't going to convince anyone of anything. Additionally, I've noticed that when people disagree on something even after significant debate and can't come to agreement, there is usually an underlying value judgement that isn't something that is subject to changing through reason. For instance, conservatives (libertarian-minded) and liberals in the US could argue as rationally as they wanted, but at the end of the day one group places more value on achieving equality, and the other is more focused on economic freedom. It impossible to tell someone they should value one of those over the other because it is a preference. Even when they agree on the importance of freedom and value it equally, one argues that the powerful didn't do it alone, and the other group agrees, but concedes far less of a contribution. Unfortunately, this is virtually intractable and impossible to prove either way. 

 

 

also Chinese so let's avoid discussing Tibet any more because we'll just irritate each other.

 

Yep. This is impossible to argue because they are operating on completely different assumptions. As far as they are concerned, they are Chinese, Chinese culture is the most important, China has controlled that land in the past and wants to control it again. It is a power struggle, plain and simple. I would say that a Chinese person would be more honest in voicing their assumptions in the first place, which is connected to the PC difference I was discussing. For instance, it took Americans forever to acknowledge that we were intervening in the middle east because of oil. Americans need a moral narrative that meshes with our freedom ideology in order to go to war--it has to be a moral issue. I have no doubt that the Chinese population would have been far more honest about their intentions given the same problems. The argument would have quickly become "we need oil and we are going to get it." I'm not saying I approve of conquering other countries for their resources, but the Chinese do seem to have a more philosophically materialistic mindset. I think that is also a large part of why they don't have the same PC culture.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

Petition to rename this thread to "the fruitless arguments about religion and other things thread".

 

ROFL. Yes, it's meandering to say the least. The problem is loaded statements keep being made that require tons of unpacking. I can't seem to say anything that isn't layered.

 

 

Just stating that the bill of rights is better then religion and expecting others to concede is imho a foolish idea.

 

I agree. I falsely assumed we had a common frame of reference, but I think we might be approaching one now.

[Lu]

This is impossible to argue because they are operating on completely different assumptions.

And your reasoning is that all or most of the Chinese assumtions are more rational than the PC American ones? Because sometimes they probably will be, and sometimes most certainly not. Do you agree with that?

As far as they are concerned, they are Chinese, Chinese culture is the most important, China has controlled that land in the past and wants to control it again. It is a power struggle, plain and simple. I would say that a Chinese person would be more honest in voicing their assumptions in the first place, which is connected to the PC difference I was discussing. For instance, it took Americans forever to acknowledge that we were intervening in the middle east because of oil. Americans need a moral narrative that meshes with our freedom ideology in order to go to war--it has to be a moral issue. I have no doubt that the Chinese population would have been far more honest about their intentions given the same problems. The argument would have quickly become "we need oil and we are going to get it." I'm not saying I approve of conquering other countries for their resources, but the Chinese do seem to have a more philosophically materialistic mindset.

America produces a moral reason to go to war (they attack us/they want freedom/they have chemical weapons and are dangerous) while actually the reason is economic (oil). China produces a moral reason to take over land (it's part of Greater China and historically belongs to us) while actually having strategic or economic reasons (Tibet is a buffer for India, the Diaoyutao sit on fishing ground and possibly oil). Neither is more rational. Or try asking Chinese people why Taiwan can't have a referendum on independence and see whether you get rational reasoning.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

China produces a moral reason to take over land (it's part of Greater China and historically belongs to us) while actually having strategic or economic reasons

 

My statement wasn't meant to imply that one had to be a veil for the other--I just failed to mention the latter.

 

I don't think the Chinese would require appeals to equality or freedom as much as Americans do. If all the facts were on the table, I think the Chinese could have an honest debate amongst themselves, in private lol, and wouldn't require any further justifications outside of the purely material ones, in this specific case. However, regardless of how different they are in this respect, this isn't really where the differences come out. The differences become apparent when you mention the things I was talking about much earlier in this thread. Certainly with respect to sexism and race, but also including many other things.

 

And your reasoning is that all or most of the Chinese assumtions are more rational than the PC American ones?

 

I now believe that the differences in PC culture are connected to the tendency of Americans to value equality (value assumption) very highly, often over both freedom and order. In China, equality would probably come dead last. The relative weight given to these values is highly subjective, but the types of behaviors that emerge as a result are very different, and PC culture develops in order to preserve the influence of these values. In America, this means that if some idea is a threat to equality, there is a very high chance that discussions of these things will quickly devolve into irrational yelling matches and honest conversations about them will be very difficult to have.

 

Here is an example. Someone suggests that the voting population needs to be more informed about political issues before they go the polls. Their argument is that

the quality of the candidates would be improved, the quality of the legislation would be improved, and government would be more accountable. This is perfectly logical. In the worst possible world, voters act completely randomly and in the best possible world they have perfect information. Obviously, we would like to have the latter. Now, you suggest steps to make that happen, and things start to go downhill quickly. Any attempts requiring voters to know anything would quickly devolve into accusations of elitism, racism, and many other -isms, despite the fact that it is an idea that we should be able to discuss. In a society that values order it wouldn't be terribly controversial, but in one in which equality is king, you cannot possibly discuss it seriously.

 

I don't think think the Chinese are inherently more rational or less PC, but their value system seems to lend itself to more careful consideration of these types of ideas. Now, I think if you are sensitive to issues that pertain to both freedom and equality, you end up with more possible points of contention, so PC culture can become more pronounced.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

Or try asking Chinese people why Taiwan can't have a referendum on independence and see whether you get rational reasoning.

 

I would like to here this one, if you know. I don't actually know what their reasoning is.

[fanglu]

 In China, equality would probably come dead last.

 

Of course, if you'd asked the question of whether freedom, order or equality are valued most in China thirty years ago, everyone would have said it was equality. 

 

 the tendency of Americans to value equality (value assumption) very highly, often over both freedom and order

Perhaps that is how Americans see it, but from my, non-American, perspective, Americans seem highly focused on freedom (eg right to bear arms), even when this is clearly to the detriment of society. 

 

That's the problem with these sort of abstract discussions, they totally depend on your starting point, and when conducted short-form on the internet, tend to just go round in circles and not be particularly interesting.

 

Edit: Yes I do recognise the irony of me contributing to the discussion which I myself have just said is uninteresting.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

Perhaps that is how Americans see it, but from my, non-American, perspective, Americans seem highly focused on freedom (eg right to bear arms), even when this is clearly to the detriment of society.

 

In an earlier post I mentioned I brought up my belief that freedom is a very close second. Among some people, it is paramount. If you bring up gun control in the right areas of this country, people jump to the conclusion that the next step is death camps. They completely lose their minds.

 

 

That's the problem with these sort of abstract discussions, they totally depend on your starting point, and when conducted short-form on the internet, tend to just go round in circles and not be particularly interesting.

 

I have always been the most bullheaded among my friends in having some kind of compulsive desire to achieve an intellectual compromise of some sort. I'm never concerned with winning as much as coming to an understanding and finding that kernel of commonality, if you will. I will admit, progress is not easily obtained....

 

I guess the worst case scenario is that we jump back into our Chinese studies if no progress is made lol.

[Shelley]

"I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

[imron]

One of the most refreshing things about living in China was the lack of religion affecting people's thought processes

This is actually one of the most depressing things about modern Chinese society, not the lack of religion per se, but rather the lack of a belief system - after all, even communism had its Lei Feng.

I'm not particularly religious, but I find "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" to be a far nobler sentiment than "To get rich is glorious".

[MarsBlackman]

The elephant in the room here is how "saving face" in China is the epitome of political correctness. 

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

I'm not particularly religious, but I find "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" to be a far nobler sentiment than "To get rich is glorious".

 

I don't like this either, and there are times when I find myself a little creeped out by how brutal the materialism is, but if I had to choose between alternatives, I wouldn't replace it with Christianity or Islam. I will admit, seeing elements of my own cynical philosophy reflected in an entire society was very disturbing, and I didn't like many of the things that I saw. I'm definitely not as hopeful about the merits of a society without religion as I used to be. Perhaps moderate Buddhism can make a sustained comeback.

[gerri]

Ah, concern about "face". Excellent comment.

 

The way I've typically "explained" it is that Chinese seem to have a tendency to think that the things one can easily see are the things that are fair game as topics of conversation. Tall, good-looking, long nose, big eyes, getting fat, doing well. Also, wanting to do well/better, because it's important "as everyone knows."

You can see that in everyday conversation, when people greet each other with statements about whether the other one is just now on the way to class (while holding all the requisite books).

 

To many a Westerner, these are exactly the obvious, surface things that you do *not* talk about: age, race, gender.

 

Chinese are probably more materialistic (as a world view-matter, I mean) and less concerned about ideology in these regards.

 

But then, take other issues. Not addressing people with the proper terms for their relation to you when you are a part of the family is a big no-go, for example. It may not be a matter of political correctness, but of social order-correctness - which doesn't exactly seem surprising in a country/culture/civilization (go take your pick) that has been so concerned with the proper names and proper relations for such a long time.

 

So, of course there are issues that are more easily discussed in China. And there are others which are more easily discussed in 'the West.'

 

The point of cultural relativism, originally, would have been that you need to look at such issues from the perspective of the respective cultural background to really get to a better understanding of why things are as they are. Doesn't mean that you can't disagree, but that's also coming from its own respective background. Where this gets really difficult, though, is when your background is in science and you try to establish a rational basis from which to judge things. It should be possible, but our judgments are always so much influenced by our cultural and individual backgrounds, the things we value more and see as parts of our identities, that we can't really be rational.

(And being scientific, this makes me want to mention that people who can't feel their emotions because of brain injuries also cannot make decisions; rationality alone just doesn't say where to stop looking for further arguments...)

 

What I'd really like to know is something much more simple: What are people's experiences with the (aforementioned) "How much do you earn?"

 

I had encountered it quite a bit, but I also found Chinese a) being very reticent to talk about incomes and b) seeing it as a sort of foreigner question that you can ask the non-Chinese but wouldn't ever ask others outside of the family/friends circle (if those)...

[Silent]

 

I'm not particularly religious, but I find "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" to be a far nobler sentiment than "To get rich is glorious".

My problem with many religions is that it's a mixed bag and give the opportunity to cherry pick the good or the bad. I do agree that a purely materialistic worldview is at the shallow end. I tend to say even unsustainable as it would destruct the social fabric and pave the way for opportunistic short term risk taking that inevitably will lead to disaster.

 

 

I'm definitely not as hopeful about the merits of a society without religion as I used to be. Perhaps moderate Buddhism can make a sustained comeback.

To me a modern world without religion seems impossible. Religion, despite it's excesses, is their to pull people together, to make a society work. The traditional religions have a long track record in doing so and have developed over time to accommodate changing needs that arose from the herds roaming the savannah, spreading over the earth and changing to an urbanized global society. The more modern, materialistic/science religions, may be a new phase in the evolution to help further humanity by colonization of space and other planets. But it may also turn out a failed experiment and result in the destruction of humanity.

[ablindwatchmaker]

 

The elephant in the room here is how "saving face" in China is the epitome of political correctness.

 

lmao, yes.

 

I completely agree. It reflects their preference for order quite nicely.

 

 

So, of course there are issues that are more easily discussed in China. And there are others which are more easily discussed in 'the West.'

 

Yes. Things related to order are definitely taken very seriously in China. The deference to authority figures within companies is another example when it involves a junior person "stepping out of line" without permission from the top.

 

 

(And being scientific, this makes me want to mention that people who can't feel their emotions because of brain injuries also cannot make decisions; rationality alone just doesn't say where to stop looking for further arguments...)

 

Damasio's studies. One critic of Sam Harris used this to argue against Harris on his unshakable faith in reason.

 

 

What I'd really like to know is something much more simple: What are people's experiences with the (aforementioned) "How much do you earn?"

 

I was never asked directly, but many Chinese people tried to ascertain my social status indirectly by asking about my house, parents, what they did, what my siblings did, what kind of car I have, etc. It was very obvious.

[imron]

My problem with many religions is that it's a mixed bag and give the opportunity to cherry pick the good or the bad

And this is why I say I'm not particularly religious. People tend to get so caught up in the details that they lose sight of the core - which essentially boils down to being a good person. As for what 'be good' means, see above about doing unto others.

That's a yardstick that transcends culture and religion and you can find similar sentiment expressed in many different cultures regardless of religion.

[MarsBlackman]

 

 

What I'd really like to know is something much more simple: What are people's experiences with the (aforementioned) "How much do you earn?"

 

In my experience, I'm never asked the question head on. I'm usually asked about something else first (phone, article of clothing, class ring, etc). I've become so used to this question that I simply just deflect, deflect, deflect because its not important to me and I'd rather talk about a hundred other things. When I first started working in China, I answered a coworker's question about how much my briefcase cost (it was a gift but a name brand so I knew). Months later somebody unrelated to the original conversation commented on my $XXX bag. I wasn't comfortable being identified by material things and haven't answered a $$ question since. When it comes to income, I never answer the question for my own personal income but will discuss industry averages. That's me trying to split the difference in what's socially acceptable to discuss.

Every Chinese person I've discussed income with knows exactly how much everybody around them is making. Its a fairly common topic, along with rent.