5 ms·

Shocker. They really needed a study to determine this?

by johnshaft1000 11y ago

hooliu 11y ago
Yes, because the alternative is racism.
- menacingly 11y ago
  wait, (correctly) anticipating the result of a study is racism?
  - CardenB 11y ago
    Yes because you don't have evidence to support your theory. You're generalizing with insufficient data.
    - tbrownaw 11y ago
      I disagree. It's not insufficient data, it's uncharacterized data. If more-or-less everyone with exposure to both cultures is in broad agreement about the differences, that's not "insufficient". It's probably actually more data than any formal study would generate. But it's also lower-quality data, with a greater chance of being distorted by various cognitive biases. Which means that it doesn't meet current regulatory standards[1] for use on large protected-class[2] groups of humans. . [1] as loosely and collectively defined by the morality police, loudest / most extreme non-ignorable activists, Internet Lynch Mob, etc [2] which includes pretty much anything these days
      - CardenB 11y ago
        How do you know if it's "more-or-less everyone" without a formal study to prove it? You only know anecdotally, which, as you said, is subject to various cognitive biases.
        michael_fine 11y ago
        But there are plenty of things that we only know anecdotally -- that one restaurant has bad service, or that line cooks smoke more than usual -- that no one gets up in arms about when we generalize in those cases. Formal studies are great when they exist, but in the absence of them it's only practical to extrapolate from incomplete data.
        icebraining 11y ago
        Does being practical preclude it being racist as well? Also, is generalizing about whole continents ever "practical"?
        michael_fine 11y ago
        I was more addressing the implication that because it's racist, we shouldn't do it. And as to generalizing about entire continents, if your goal is to avoid getting mugged on a late night, and you know that on average black people commit more muggings than anyone else, is it not practical to walk to the other side of the street if you see a black man (and that's your only information?)
    - lightcatcher 11y ago
      If you can generalize on similar problems and be correct more often than random chance, then you have a useful model regardless of the data backing that model.
- Fiahil 11y ago
  A genuine question: is making assumptions based on perceived cultural influence incorrect? I mean, I know asian work cultures are "harder" than my european one, but is it incorrect to spell that in a public/social context?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    It's not incorrect (it'll just lead you to results as good as your assumptions were), but it today's climate, it's definitely not a good idea to say it out loud.
- paulsutter 11y ago
  The study is geographic, and about work culture not race. To your point, a better title might refer to "Asian Countries" and "European Countries" instead of individuals. Europeans living in Japanese companies work similar days/hours as their coworkers, of course.
  - aikah 11y ago
    > The study is geographic, and about work culture not race It's a social study, not geography. Assuming that Japanese are like that or french people are like that is indeed prejudice, since there is no data to back things up but individual bias, or bias promoted by movies or the pop culture. I agree with your second point.
    - paulsutter 11y ago
      The study is done by country (geography), not by race. From the article: "According to the study, South Korea and Japan lead the legions of overworked...On the other side of the globe, workers in Finland, France, Germany and Spain are all given 30 days of vacation each year"
- hugh4 11y ago
  I take this as evidence that the word "racism" has completely lost whatever meaning it may have had, and that we should probably make up a new word to mean what "racism" used to mean, if we still think that's a useful concept.
tbrownaw 11y ago
Yes. Not everything that's "obvious" is actually correct. There is value in verifying such things. There is also value in quantifying such things beyond the level of detail available from "but everybody knows...".

Shocker. They really needed a study to determine this?

hooliu 11y ago

Yes, because the alternative is racism.

menacingly 11y ago
wait, (correctly) anticipating the result of a study is racism?
- CardenB 11y ago
  Yes because you don't have evidence to support your theory. You're generalizing with insufficient data.
  - tbrownaw 11y ago
    I disagree. It's not insufficient data, it's uncharacterized data. If more-or-less everyone with exposure to both cultures is in broad agreement about the differences, that's not "insufficient". It's probably actually more data than any formal study would generate. But it's also lower-quality data, with a greater chance of being distorted by various cognitive biases. Which means that it doesn't meet current regulatory standards[1] for use on large protected-class[2] groups of humans. . [1] as loosely and collectively defined by the morality police, loudest / most extreme non-ignorable activists, Internet Lynch Mob, etc [2] which includes pretty much anything these days
    - CardenB 11y ago
      How do you know if it's "more-or-less everyone" without a formal study to prove it? You only know anecdotally, which, as you said, is subject to various cognitive biases.
      - michael_fine 11y ago
        But there are plenty of things that we only know anecdotally -- that one restaurant has bad service, or that line cooks smoke more than usual -- that no one gets up in arms about when we generalize in those cases. Formal studies are great when they exist, but in the absence of them it's only practical to extrapolate from incomplete data.
        icebraining 11y ago
        Does being practical preclude it being racist as well? Also, is generalizing about whole continents ever "practical"?
        michael_fine 11y ago
        I was more addressing the implication that because it's racist, we shouldn't do it. And as to generalizing about entire continents, if your goal is to avoid getting mugged on a late night, and you know that on average black people commit more muggings than anyone else, is it not practical to walk to the other side of the street if you see a black man (and that's your only information?)
  - lightcatcher 11y ago
    If you can generalize on similar problems and be correct more often than random chance, then you have a useful model regardless of the data backing that model.
Fiahil 11y ago
A genuine question: is making assumptions based on perceived cultural influence incorrect? I mean, I know asian work cultures are "harder" than my european one, but is it incorrect to spell that in a public/social context?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  It's not incorrect (it'll just lead you to results as good as your assumptions were), but it today's climate, it's definitely not a good idea to say it out loud.
paulsutter 11y ago
The study is geographic, and about work culture not race. To your point, a better title might refer to "Asian Countries" and "European Countries" instead of individuals. Europeans living in Japanese companies work similar days/hours as their coworkers, of course.
- aikah 11y ago
  > The study is geographic, and about work culture not race It's a social study, not geography. Assuming that Japanese are like that or french people are like that is indeed prejudice, since there is no data to back things up but individual bias, or bias promoted by movies or the pop culture. I agree with your second point.
  - paulsutter 11y ago
    The study is done by country (geography), not by race. From the article: "According to the study, South Korea and Japan lead the legions of overworked...On the other side of the globe, workers in Finland, France, Germany and Spain are all given 30 days of vacation each year"
hugh4 11y ago
I take this as evidence that the word "racism" has completely lost whatever meaning it may have had, and that we should probably make up a new word to mean what "racism" used to mean, if we still think that's a useful concept.

tbrownaw 11y ago

Yes. Not everything that's "obvious" is actually correct. There is value in verifying such things. There is also value in quantifying such things beyond the level of detail available from "but everybody knows...".