Comment by aurareturn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aurareturn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Just anecdote experience here.

I lived in China for 10+ years. Most recently a few years ago. Lived in the US for 20+ years.

In China, I never met a single person who was anti-science. None.* Everyone knew that to get ahead in life, they had to get educated. Part of that education requires learning sciences.

Meanwhile, in the US, anti-Science is part of the culture. It even starts early in school. In the US, if you liked science as a kid, you were labeled as a nerd or uncool. In China, being good at science in school gave you more social status, not less. In the US, religion is also a huge blocker for many towards sciences. In China, people aren't religious at all or that their religion does not contradict with the sciences.

I think people here see how far behind China was in the 19th century and conclude that people there must be anti-science. China had different reasons for being far behind in science in the 19th century. Being anti-science is not one of them.

* I should clarify that of course there are people in China who are anti-science. I’m mostly referring to “normal” people. IE. people who contribute to society, have jobs, went to college, etc.

There is a big area in the middle between pro- and anti-science. And what you describe is more pro-education than pro-science. Education and science are not the same, even if it includes knowledge acquired by science. And we know from all around the world, that even well-educated people, even scientists, can fall in the intellectual pitfall of myths, superstition and strange unscientific theories and maintain both worldviews side by side.

> In China, I never met a single person who was anti-science. None.* Everyone knew that to get ahead in life, they had to get educated. Part of that education requires learning sciences.

That’s a pretty crude definition of “pro-science”.

Anectdote and opinion follow here.

As a nerd that did break out of that label, let me tell you that if you had any emotional intelligence or social skills, you don't lose social status in American schools for being smart, in science or any other subjects.

If you did other 'cool' things successfully - perhaps soft rebellion against teachers or administrators, music, athletics, parties, dance or cheer, or were physically attractive (took care of yourself and followed basic fashion), and had good social skills you don't stay at the bottom of the social ladder here, even in the Social Darwinism of middle and high school.

Competency and accuracy are the lowest form of interpersonal skills. If no other interpersonal skills or interests are cultivated outside of science, even the most competent and accurate individuals are likely to fail socially, which will also effect their career outcomes. Competency is used too often as a display of dominance or defensive mechanism. As bragging. As self-delusion. Connections with a diverse set of people outside of the competency only group will increase social skills and status, and with those connections comes a higher chance of success.

The people who are labeled nerds and derided for it constantly generally do not try or care to try to make these outside connections for fear of ridicule or oversensitivity, and occasionally physical safety. Non nerds see this as a superiority complex, and find overly sensitive and defensive people difficult. So they are devalued socially.

That is to say - make lots of friends and cultivate various interests outside of your core interests. Be interested in others and their accomplishments. Engage in the social jousting and own being the butt of a joke every once in a while. Don't lean on intelligence and academic achievement for everything. You don't have to win every debate to prove how smart and deserving to lead you are. You have more value than just being right all the time.

These values fit our American cultural ideals, where our leaders are typically selected on the basis of all their skills rather than a singular aptitude.

You are confusing being a user of scientifically-derived knowledge with being a practitioner of scientific principles. The former is just another belief system without the latter.

No, I don't think I'm. For example, China's quality science output just surpassed the US in the last few years, according to Nature Index.

Your original statement was about the whole of the Chinese population. Your latest statement is about scientific output, which is driven by a small subset of the population. The two are not necessarily related.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com