|
ReV VAdAUL posted:I'm sorry but when I see someone suggesting the reduction of scholarship to a "free market of ideas" is a positive thing I'm going to attack it. Chinese scholarship seems to be worthy of little but contempt but that does not mean it should be a cause for backslappery for western scholars. Haha what the hell? You brought up the tu quoque thing, and now you're twisting around to being against people using the badness of Chinese research to excuse poor western practices? Nobody was talking about that. I think we can all agree that good research is good and bad research is bad. Maybe you should leave it at that? You happen to be wrong about the free market of ideas thing but that's tangential to the whole barging in and declaring "we need to be careful" about legitimate criticism because someone, somewhere whose only conceivable connection with the posters in this thread is sharing the overbroad label "western" did something bad. The free market of ideas mentioned was probably a metaphor for peer review anyway.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 13:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:We're in the China thread though. Not to mention the west is doing better. Much better. Far better. Which is why we're comparing Chinese academia and research integrity to it and finding it wanting in the first goddamn place AAAAAARGH.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You happen to be wrong about the free market of ideas thing but that's tangential to the whole barging in and declaring "we need to be careful" about legitimate criticism because someone, somewhere whose only conceivable connection with the posters in this thread is sharing the overbroad label "western" did something bad. The free market of ideas mentioned was probably a metaphor for peer review anyway. While I only posted that passage because it amusingly parallels so many ideological conflicts between Chinese and Westerners, I can't imagine how a "free market of ideas," in the form of scholars who, though they may align with particular movements or groups, present individually peer-reviewed work to be criticized by others, is a bad thing. It's not like the economic free market, in which people are invariably exploited and suffer for it; in an intellectual free market, competition simply forces academics to produce quality work persistently and to remain relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
Warning: anecdotal information. I have a good friend who is from China and now a sociologist in the US for over a decade. She has the following problem. The research questions being asked in the US 'academic market place' (cough) in her field are all questions directed toward a criticism of the Chinese state based on a particular ideological stance. The questions being asked in China are, not surprisingly, quite different and often asked in a different way. The notion of an 'academic free market' is even more of a myth than the existence of an actual free market.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Sogol posted:Warning: anecdotal information. Of course the "free market" isn't actually entirely free, and the work of academics everywhere is circumscribed by ideology and various conventions. But do you actually mean to suggest that scholars working under the aegis of an obviously partial organization which has no qualms about interfering in their work and desires a specific result produce more fruitful work than a group of scholars working individually and freely criticizing each other's findings?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
MeinPanzer posted:Of course the "free market" isn't actually entirely free, and the work of academics everywhere is circumscribed by ideology and various conventions. But do you actually mean to suggest that scholars working under the aegis of an obviously partial organization which has no qualms about interfering in their work and desires a specific result produce more fruitful work than a group of scholars working individually and freely criticizing each other's findings? I don't find that the peer review process works exactly as you are advertising it, though that would be a good idea. This is particularly true with respect to innovation, most of which is funded by the DoD. In briefings on the national R&D strategy academics are literally told 'you develop it, we will decide what to do with it'. I have a chart from the NSF displaying this if I can find it. We are blind to the effects of this (as well as some aspects of peer review). That perception may just be some eccentricity of my experience though. A thread on the deconstruction of peer review and the effects of the military-industrial-academic system might be interesting. I do not understand China. I have been going there for over 25 years, lived there for several years at a time in the process, done research, worked, learned the language, made dear life long friends, etc. I really still fail to understand in many basic and I imagine profound ways. I do notice how easily I can judge based on my own ethnocentricity. This is not a back handed claim about somebody else, it is simply what I notice about myself. I do not think the Chinese system of research is superior. In the 80’s it was not possible to get books or materials outside of your field and even that was limited. Of course that has changed significantly. I do think, like centralized planning, or traditional thesis construction in 'east' and 'west', it is very different and I am pretty sure I do not understand those differences, even having spent a fair amount of time on the question. It is interesting to look at patents, though I have not decided what that tells me yet. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/04/chinas-great-leap-forward-in-patents/id=38625/
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Seeing a graph of the approval numbers would be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Seeing a graph of the approval numbers would be interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_patents China and the US are pretty close both running around 50%, with pretty close gross numbers. At a glance Russia runs almost 100% and France about 10%. I haven't found the data graphed anywhere yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Sogol posted:I don't find that the peer review process works exactly as you are advertising it, though that would be a good idea. This is particularly true with respect to innovation, most of which is funded by the DoD. In briefings on the national R&D strategy academics are literally told 'you develop it, we will decide what to do with it'. I have a chart from the NSF displaying this if I can find it. We are blind to the effects of this (as well as some aspects of peer review). That perception may just be some eccentricity of my experience though. A thread on the deconstruction of peer review and the effects of the military-industrial-academic system might be interesting. I think we are to a certain extent talking about apples and oranges here. I am approaching this from the perspective of academics who are not working for a partial organization - i.e. tenured individuals or independent scholars who are not in the pocket of a company or other institution which desires a particular outcome from their research. In the West as in China, there are huge swathes of the academic community who choose to work for government agencies or corporations and are thus subject to direct manipulation. I am talking, however, about academics in the ivory tower sense of scholars who are free to teach and research without overbearing restrictions being imposed on their work. Of course I understand that universities everywhere are by no means impartial institutions, and that tenured Western academics are subject to all kinds of forces that influence their scholarship, but in this realm there is a fundamental difference between the Chinese and the Western approach to academia. In the former, all scholars working in China, and especially those working on topics relating to China, are limited by the government's oversight, regardless of whether they have tenure or not; in the latter, scholars not affiliated with a particular institution that pays them to come up with a certain result are free to research and debate topics of their choosing, even if they reflect poorly on their country's history, government, or culture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
The Economist has an infographic they use to describe how the growth of Chinese patents is just a lousy raw statistic that doesn't do much to show whether or not the country is innovative. Apparently it's telling that almost no Chinese patent holders file their patents outside of China.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Also the discussion was clearly about the humanities and things like historical research, not science or engineering as in patents. The US government doesn't command historians to "find" research that, for instance, indicates that Native American tribes all left on their own or freely gave their lands to white settlers. You can talk about the effects of ideology in terms of framing and biasing research, but this is very very different from literally making poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Perhaps a more basic way to interpret it is the fact that I'm having trouble remembering the last technological breakthrough to come out of China since the middle ages. I'm probably just not looking hard enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Sogol posted:I don't find that the peer review process works exactly as you are advertising it, though that would be a good idea. This is particularly true with respect to innovation, most of which is funded by the DoD. In briefings on the national R&D strategy academics are literally told 'you develop it, we will decide what to do with it'. I have a chart from the NSF displaying this if I can find it. We are blind to the effects of this (as well as some aspects of peer review). That perception may just be some eccentricity of my experience though. A thread on the deconstruction of peer review and the effects of the military-industrial-academic system might be interesting. This is a nonsensical statement because "we decide what to do with it" has nothing to do with peer review.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
I did not mean to do a drive by derailing on peer review. I certainly do not know enough about how publishing and 'grant' funding works in China to use it as some critical baseline for US peer review, were that even remotely appropriate. I still find my friend's experience interesting. She is by no means nationalistic, yet feels that the questions being asked in her field in China are more relevant. I have asked her about sociologists being suppressed. I believe this to be the case and feel I have found examples in the past. She does not. I would like to understand that without being dismissive in some way. I thought it remotely possible someone might have some experience or insight. The DoD strategy and funding environment does effect the peer review process in the US, all the way from what questions are likely to be funded to the guts of the process itself. I have interviewed scientists about this first starting 1989 and worked with NSF officers on the question in the last several years. It would be nice if it really were not politicized at the funding level or the immediacy of the academy, but it is. The process is under some critique, not for good reasons, it seems to me. The elimination of peer review and replacing it with Congressional criteria seems an incredibly bad idea to me. The NSF is concerned about peer review and funding environment being able to allow sufficient innovation, given the 'Grand Challenges' and such. Currently they feel that it does not. That is not about the 'halo', reproducibility or the issues people raise having to do with the need to produce positive results. It is a consequence of the process working as intended. Given the current madness about Congressional control this is probably not a very politic thing to say in DC at the moment. There is also all this motion about 'fast tracking', open access, etc. I would be far more supportive of that than of Congressional management, which they seem to be suggesting. The open access stuff is already happening and probably needs some process attached to it. People also seem to talk about tenure as if it affords the protection intended, in conjunction with peer review. The work we are doing is in great part based on the premise of academic freedom. We are able to do the work because of this, but it is not without consequences. The NSF happens to be incredibly supportive and happy thus far. It is the institutional reaction that is interesting, both locally and nationally. That said, one of our primary partners is a Chinese University and of course the overt dynamic is strongly hierarchical. I would be interested to hear from someone who has been doing research in China to understand their experience, if there is anyone. My guess is that it is highly politicized and based on kabals reaching into the NDRC? It used to run on Taiwan in a similar way, but I am not sure what that is like now. Thank you for the article on patents. I am still wondering how the Chinese might measure the relative success or failure of their own research efforts, and such things as 'intellectual merit'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
Sogol posted:I did not mean to do a drive by derailing on peer review. I certainly do not know enough about how publishing and 'grant' funding works in China to use it as some critical baseline for US peer review, were that even remotely appropriate. I still find my friend's experience interesting. She is by no means nationalistic, yet feels that the questions being asked in her field in China are more relevant. I have asked her about sociologists being suppressed. I believe this to be the case and feel I have found examples in the past. She does not. I would like to understand that without being dismissive in some way. I thought it remotely possible someone might have some experience or insight. You seem to be conflating peer review of grant applications with peer review of publications. These are different processes with fairly different ends. Basically everything you've said since then has been based on this misunderstanding along with selectively ignoring the scope of the question in favor of steering the conversation towards areas you're familiar with instead of areas you seem to know very little to nothing about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:You seem to be conflating peer review of grant applications with peer review of publications. These are different processes with fairly different ends. Basically everything you've said since then has been based on this misunderstanding along with selectively ignoring the scope of the question in favor of steering the conversation towards areas you're familiar with instead of areas you seem to know very little to nothing about. Truly and simply, I am not interested in arguing with you. You may list my many irredeemable character flaws and ignorances, as well as all your arguments and I will simply concede them. I would be interested to understand more about how research and funding decisions are actually made in China, if anyone has anything on that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
Sogol posted:Truly and simply, I am not interested in arguing with you. You may list my many irredeemable character flaws and ignorances, as well as all your arguments and I will simply concede them. This is a discussion forum, not a lecture venue and hugbox. You should try responding to questions and criticisms directly instead of passive-aggressively refusing to reply or immediately changing the subject to some other tangent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
edit: ignore
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 06:06
|
|
Sogol posted:I would be interested to understand more about how research and funding decisions are actually made in China, if anyone has anything on that. You could probably just say that instead of making a bunch of useless posts about America next time.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
What I'm interested in is the opinions of Mainland Chinese towards those born to Chinese parents in foreign countries. Are they the same as the Koreans, with their 'Blood belongs to the land, you've gotta be born here and look like us to be us' concepts?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:What I'm interested in is the opinions of Mainland Chinese towards those born to Chinese parents in foreign countries. Are they the same as the Koreans, with their 'Blood belongs to the land, you've gotta be born here and look like us to be us' concepts? Exactly the opposite. Even if you're completely culturally American and don't even speak the language, if you're ethnically Chinese, you're Chinese. Deal with it. You can look, for example, how China takes ownership of Jeremy Lin, whose family roots are in Taiwan and the guy himself is all American and Christiany.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:12
|
|
|
No it's very much "you're still one of us!" whether the person in question wants to be or not. They mean it in a friendly way, usually. There was some stupid discussion thread I remember reading about Chinese-American soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and some of the posters either didn't read carefully before posting (likely) or didn't really get the concept of a non-Chinese person of Chinese origin. I'm not sure how deeply-held these sorts of belief are though. Chinese society is having to renegotiate all these sorts of opinions, starting from a place of astonishing ignorance originating in the closing-off period. I think that as contact and awareness with actual foreign culture (as opposed to the Chinese concept of foreignness which is unique and weird) Chinese attitudes about this sort of thing will change. I hope they'll change for the better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:17
|
|
|
Chinese living in Indonesia and returning to China around 19060 were treated like poo poo though. They were seen as corrupted by capitalism and sent to reeducation. That's why my mother's relatives still live in Indonesia and don't like the Chinese government very much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:No it's very much "you're still one of us!" whether the person in question wants to be or not. They mean it in a friendly way, usually. There was some stupid discussion thread I remember reading about Chinese-American soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and some of the posters either didn't read carefully before posting (likely) or didn't really get the concept of a non-Chinese person of Chinese origin. You can also see this in how most levels of Chinese government seem reluctant to aggressively prosecute foreign citizens but this tends to not hold true for those of Chinese descent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Perhaps a more basic way to interpret it is the fact that I'm having trouble remembering the last technological breakthrough to come out of China since the middle ages. I'm probably just not looking hard enough. From what I've heard they're actually pretty big players in nanotech research and obviously they've got pretty good ballistic missile tech. Which again would also contribute in part to their relative lack of international patents even assuming that their hard sciences are top-notch and not full of corrupt bullshit (obviously there's some corrupt bullshit but there's a question of how much and how pervasive). They're still generally behind the US in general and Russia in military-specific tech though, but that's changing (IIRC their domestic jet engines are now Gen 4+ quality and they may be able to build Gen 5 engines like what you'll see in the T-50 and F-22 soon). Oh, and there's just some stuff like this: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/~/media/GFO/Documents/2011%20G20%20Report%20PDFs/Case%20Studies/superricecasestudy.pdf The problem is, of course, there's a whole anti-Chinese narrative in a lot of western media and there's the China gently caress Yeah narrative in Chinese media so it's really hard to find unbiased sources for this kind of poo poo. Generally what I do is look on Chinese state-owned mouthpieces like Chinadaily for these things and then try to verify from outside, relatively unbiased sources like the Gates Foundation. Same with Chinese ballistic missile tech, I looked at Chinese mouthpieces and then confirmed from the US Naval Academy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:Chinese living in Indonesia and returning to China around 19060 were treated like poo poo though. They were seen as corrupted by capitalism and sent to reeducation. That's why my mother's relatives still live in Indonesia and don't like the Chinese government very much. That's the fault of Maoism though. The 1960s were a time when everyone in China was treated like poo poo. Top-tier government officials got thrown off of buildings and 200% of people got sent to reeducation at some point or another. It's certainly not because Chinese Indonesians weren't viewed as Chinese enough. Hell, if you had a landlord going back what? Three generations? In your family, you'd have all sorts of unpleasant things happening to you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:That's the fault of Maoism though. The 1960s were a time when everyone in China was treated like poo poo. Top-tier government officials got thrown off of buildings and 200% of people got sent to reeducation at some point or another. It's certainly not because Chinese Indonesians weren't viewed as Chinese enough. Yup. I just wanted to emphasize that there is a difference between being seen as Chinese and association with the past and current mainland Chinese government. Tons of Chinese don't want anything to do with it. Edit: I'm also saying this because the PRC government is all "You're all Chinese and we are CHINA! So return to us and let us control your live!" and it really pisses me of. Lucy Heartfilia fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
MJ12 posted:From what I've heard they're actually pretty big players in nanotech research and obviously they've got pretty good ballistic missile tech. Which again would also contribute in part to their relative lack of international patents even assuming that their hard sciences are top-notch and not full of corrupt bullshit (obviously there's some corrupt bullshit but there's a question of how much and how pervasive). Yeah I tend to view most talk of "innovation" as just a thinly veiled retread of the same dumb ideas from the 80s about the Japanese all being conformist robots incapable of creativity or independent thought because of their culture i.e., magic orientalist bullshit that substitutes nebulous cultural causes for fairly solid material facts. It's basically a coping strategy to say that "hey, they might work harder than we do, but we're special (and it's almost implied inherently more human than they are) because creativity and innovation beat dumb brute effort so no need to worry." Basically, we want to believe that US achievement in sciences is due to something essential and inherently "American" instead of being because of historical advantages and concrete systems that any nation could potentially get, or that the US could easily lose without anything as slow or difficult as a change in core cultural values or "essence." It's appealing because it emphasizes the objective "rightness" of American culture and because it implies that any true rival to the US must first become just like us. You see this, for instance, in the idea that American-styled political freedoms are required for innovation and technical development. Ignoring the fact that the USSR rivaled the US in technology until their economy imploded, and that many amazing, ground-breaking technical developments came out of literal scientific gulags there. I'd say that scientific developments and 'innovation' are about money, expertise, and institutions, just like basically every other nice thing developed nations have that developing nations don't. China's getting there on the money and expertise parts, but they're a long ways away on the institutions at least for civil institutions because of massive corruption and individual fraud that's not adequately addressed or enforced because of limited resources and lax governance and management. At the military level, they're probably less dysfunctional (at least in the sense that the US MIC etc. is pretty dysfunctional too). OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:At the military level, they're probably less dysfunctional (at least in the sense that the US MIC etc. is pretty dysfunctional too). Stop talking out of your rear end, you keep doing it over and over. Please try to know at least a little tiny bit about your subject before you tell us about it. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
I don't think that you can completely write off culture as irrelevant as far as innovation and technological advancement are concerned though. There is no concrete reason why American civilization hadn't advanced technologically to the degree that Europe had by the 1500's aside from culture and history taking everyone down different paths.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:There is no concrete reason why American civilization hadn't advanced technologically to the degree that Europe had by the 1500's aside from culture and history taking everyone down different paths.  I would actually prefer to avoid this derail but still, dude. That's a hell of an assertion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Stop talking out of your rear end, you keep doing it over and over. Please try to know at least a little tiny bit about your subject before you tell us about it. I meant less dysfunctional than their civil institutions, not less dysfunctional than in the US. I'm not that well-versed in the internal workings of the Chinese military and its R&D system as I am relatively so in their legal system and civil government, but based just on achievements they seem relatively more competent in terms of end results, at least at the very low standards you'd hold for a large peacetime military (which is what I was trying to allude to with the US military comment). For instance, in terms of ballistic missiles or technical espionage, they seem to run a pretty tight ship (in terms of seeming actually competent at least from the outside). OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:
You're right, best avoid that derail. But culture does matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
I think it would be great if research in China catches up to international standards soon. So many more minds working on solving problems and new technologies efficiently would be a massive boon to humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:You're right, best avoid that derail. But culture does matter. It depends entirely on what you mean when you say "culture." If culture refers to the norms of behavior and conduct created by the policies and workings of an institution, such as when you say "corporate culture" then yes. But not so much when it's used by people who say "it's just their culture" as in nearly immutable or somehow essential characteristics of a nation. Arguably, culture or "national character" tends to change to fit material factors and not the other way around. If so, then it's a bad explanation for long-term macro historical trends, as opposed to what's happening in the current day on a short time frame. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
I wonder why Hong Kong has gently caress all for innovation and entrepreneurialism though. Why does everybody just want their kid, and by extension why does ever kid want, to be a doctor, lawyer or BANKER PLEASE GOD LET HIM BE A BANKER instead of a scientist, engineer or entrepreneur? It's pretty tempting to say it's something about Chinese conservatism or whatever. But then again, in every other place on the planet besides majority Chinese places like Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, Chinese migrants are entrepreneurial as all hell and dominate everything. Especially in Southeast Asia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 09:35
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:I think it would be great if research in China catches up to international standards soon. So many more minds working on solving problems and new technologies efficiently would be a massive boon to humanity. This works until the overseers start overhearing things like 'Corruption' and 'Government in collusion with organised crime' and 'State-sponsored organ harvesting' and 'Problem' and 'No confidence in the ruling party' and (Eventually and inevitably) 'I have an idea on how to fix it.' Those thousand flowers might bloom hella radiant, but that doesn't mean they won't have the poo poo weeded out of them if the gardener suddenly decides that he doesn't like the way the colour palette is changing. Bloodnose posted:I wonder why Hong Kong has gently caress all for innovation and entrepreneurialism though. Why does everybody just want their kid, and by extension why does ever kid want, to be a doctor, lawyer or BANKER PLEASE GOD LET HIM BE A BANKER instead of a scientist, engineer or entrepreneur? It's pretty tempting to say it's something about Chinese conservatism or whatever. Here, at least, a scientist gets paid and lives far less comfortably than a banker or a CFO. Hell, it's the reason I took up accountancy instead of high-energy chemistry as my Bachelor's degree. And then the global financial crisis hit and all the accounting jobs died. I got luck like a Bizarro Irishman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Those thousand flowers might bloom hella radiant, but that doesn't mean they won't have the poo poo weeded out of them if the gardener suddenly decides that he doesn't like the way the colour palette is changing. Mao was such a gigantic rear end in a top hat. And I'm sure the harm done was huge. His successors are more subtle but just as damaging for the progress of China. loving sad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
MJ12 posted:From what I've heard they're actually pretty big players in nanotech research and obviously they've got pretty good ballistic missile tech. Which again would also contribute in part to their relative lack of international patents even assuming that their hard sciences are top-notch and not full of corrupt bullshit (obviously there's some corrupt bullshit but there's a question of how much and how pervasive). I can give an anecdotal confirmation to this. Self assembled carbon nano-tube forests into arbitrarily long fibers and graphitic (graphene  ) areogels are things developed by Chinese collaborators from my grad school days and popularized by one of the professors I know. It's a general method of "use a well-known western professor for adding legitimacy to the data."
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
Bloodnose posted:I wonder why Hong Kong has gently caress all for innovation and entrepreneurialism though. Why does everybody just want their kid, and by extension why does ever kid want, to be a doctor, lawyer or BANKER PLEASE GOD LET HIM BE A BANKER instead of a scientist, engineer or entrepreneur? It's pretty tempting to say it's something about Chinese conservatism or whatever. I think it's unique to Hong Kong. The isn't many innovative industries on the island that graduates can go to other than finance or banking. That probably relates to Hong Kong's traditional role as a bridge between China and the West and its horrible real estate problem. You can't open up a huge R&D campus there if you're IBM, Pfizer or whatever. There's just no room. But finance/baking is just office space which you can do easier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 18:09
|
|