Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Rice Theory’ Explains North-South China Cultural Differences, Study Shows

news.virginia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: ‘Rice Theory’ Explains North-South China Cultural Differences, Study Shows

#21

Post by Retric »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #16
erikb wrote: post #4

It annoys me a little that a) Someone thinks so many people can be divided into just two groups b) the idea that validating an assumption should also automatically validate the reason. People in the north might be more individualistic than in the south, and yes they grow wheat and not rice but that doesn't mean one depends on the other. It just doesn't seem all too scientific to confuse correlation with cause.

Your point (a) is ridiculous. For example, I could fruitfully divide the population of China into two groups, male and female. They're different in ways that are often useful to know. North and South Chinese have been obviously different for many centuries. One of my favorite stories about this concerns the development of affirmative action in the late 14th / early 15th century: > In 1370, the first Emperor of the Dy…

A population the size of China is going to have plenty of people that don't fit the M/F choice. For an extreme example a fully functional hermaphrodite could be both or self identify as one or the other. Some people are XXY genotype or even XXXY so even genetic testing can be ambiguous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Re: ‘Rice Theory’ Explains North-South China Cultural Differences, Study Shows

#22

Post by thaumasiotes »

Retric wrote: post #21
thaumasiotes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point (a) is ridiculous. For example, I could fruitfully divide the population of China into two groups, male and female. They're different in ways that are often useful to know. North and South Chinese have been obviously different for many centuries. One of my favorite stories about this concerns the development of affirmative action in the late 14th / early 15th century: > In 1370, the first Emperor of the Dy…

A population the size of China is going to have plenty of people that don't fit the M/F choice. For an extreme example a fully functional hermaphrodite could be both or self identify as one or the other. Some people are XXY genotype or even XXXY so even genetic testing can be ambiguous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

You do realize XXY and XXXY are genetically male...?

Re: ‘Rice Theory’ Explains North-South China Cultural Differences, Study Shows

#23

Post by fatjokes »

credo wrote: post #20

I know that Malcolm Gladwell comes in for pretty harsh criticism in HN (and that also applies to comments that might be supportive of Gladwell :) However, I think it is worth pointing out that the "rice theory" in the virginia.edu post isn't particularly new. In 'Outliers' (which came out six years ago) Gladwell writes extensively about the "rice theory" (and Gladwell may have relied on prior research by other folks)…

I'm certainly not a fan of Gladwell but it was never because he was wrong, but because his arguments are more of a string of cherry-picked anecdotes than rigorous studies backed by evidence and sound statistics. Granted, the former makes for a smoother read, but it deceives (intentionally or not) a lot of the public because it sounds so darn smart!

Re: ‘Rice Theory’ Explains North-South China Cultural Differences, Study Shows

#24

Post by Retric »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #22
Retric wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A population the size of China is going to have plenty of people that don't fit the M/F choice. For an extreme example a fully functional hermaphrodite could be both or self identify as one or the other. Some people are XXY genotype or even XXXY so even genetic testing can be ambiguous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

You do realize XXY and XXXY are genetically male...?

There mostly male, but often with significant female secondary sexual characteristics and sterility. This is of-course ignoring Mosaic people which have two set's of DNA so you can be XXY and XX at the same time... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(genetics)

Re: ‘Rice Theory’ Explains North-South China Cultural Differences, Study Shows

#25

Post by erikb »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #16
erikb wrote: post #4

It annoys me a little that a) Someone thinks so many people can be divided into just two groups b) the idea that validating an assumption should also automatically validate the reason. People in the north might be more individualistic than in the south, and yes they grow wheat and not rice but that doesn't mean one depends on the other. It just doesn't seem all too scientific to confuse correlation with cause.

Your point (a) is ridiculous. For example, I could fruitfully divide the population of China into two groups, male and female. They're different in ways that are often useful to know. North and South Chinese have been obviously different for many centuries. One of my favorite stories about this concerns the development of affirmative action in the late 14th / early 15th century: > In 1370, the first Emperor of the Dy…

From a logical point of view your argument makes a lot of sense. If you go to China it doesn't help you much though, because if you have 4 Chinese friends there you have to learn 4 different cultures and they speak 4 different dialects. I always feel that culturally China is comparable to the European Union, not to a single country. Just that they already made the decision to have a unified language.

Re: ‘Rice Theory’ Explains North-South China Cultural Differences, Study Shows

#26

Post by threatofrain »

erikb wrote: post #4

It annoys me a little that a) Someone thinks so many people can be divided into just two groups b) the idea that validating an assumption should also automatically validate the reason. People in the north might be more individualistic than in the south, and yes they grow wheat and not rice but that doesn't mean one depends on the other. It just doesn't seem all too scientific to confuse correlation with cause.

Perhaps it shocks your moral sensibility to generalize across humans, but it is perfectly legitimate for anyone who is seeking the truth to do these things. For them, the primary question must be "to what degree is a generalization meaningful?".

When we say things like, "The African American population in the US is materially disadvantaged.", that statement does generalize across many individuals. But it's also potentially very useful or actionable.

Also, anyone who says they judge people as individuals is probably bullshitting to the max. It sounds cognitively overburdening and wasteful.

Post reply on HN