6 ms·

Went I went to the US(Boston, from Europe) I was surprised by the behavior in University given by the intense private competition. It is not the difficulty its

Went I went to the US(Boston, from Europe) I was surprised by the behavior in University given by the intense private competition. It is not the difficulty itself, as it is probably harder to study engineering in Europe or Asia, but the competitive mindset, "every man for himself". This has advantages, like taking plagiarism very seriously, but also terrible disadvantages, like not working well in groups. People like Japanese or Chinese are trained in working in groups with disrespect for the individual. The American culture is the polar opposite, they worship individuals disrespecting the team, e.g you wont ever hear them talking about Edison's team(of which Tesla was one of its members), or Steve Jobs'. Americans love to believe that there is a person that does everything. Having said that, in some companies they don't share because of fear. If you create a community like Microsoft's four years ago in which for every team, the "least qualified"(even if all of them are great) is fired, you create a culture of threat and terror, and people are going to protect their selves. You have also to take care, not putting too many leechers in the same place as the seeders, or the seeders won't be able to solve problems(that they love to solve) because they are babysitters of the leechers full time(something they hate to do). Some companies do not understand the last point, then they comply about people not sharing. If you put together a team that admire each other, they share naturally.

kghose 12y ago
I have worked in three research institutions in the US - At the University of Maryland, at Harvard University and at Mass General Hospital. While there were cultural differences as well as individual differences, my main observation was that people were eager to share and teach one another. This was my main attraction to academic life. Cross-disciplinary collaboration was also very encouraged. The level of secrecy, however, probably depends on field. I was in neurophysiology + cognitive science. Colleages in the molecular biology field complained of competition and secretiveness from colleagues. I suspect that this extends not just to the US but to Europe as well. I knew of a researcher from Denmark in a certain field who was known to 'sit' on a certain resource and control access to it to reduce competition and further their own name.
paulhauggis 12y ago
So it should be fine in a university setting that one person does all the work and the rest just copy it? The reason this is frowned upon is because the people that just copy don't end up gaining the valuable skills they are there for in the first place. I've worked in many group settings in school, and this is usually what ends up happening if left unchecked (1 or 2 people doing 90% of the work and the rest just copying it. I don't know about you, but I don't want any "leechers" working with me in the workplace. Why would I do your job for you and then not get the credit? In a work setting, I've been in groups where we had to share knowledge (each person is working on a different part and you need to combine them together). This is much different than what you are describing.
- calibraxis 12y ago
  If we wish to remove such dysfunctions, best to drop the grading system (to the extent stamping a number on your forehead affects your future life). I do exactly this, and none of us "cheat". Cheating is a meaningless concept to us anyway; using someone else's work is as silly as stealing from your own wallet. As for avoiding leechers, they're often called "managers" and "bosses". (I say that as a manager. Structurally, and in the vast majority of cases, they're leeches.)
TeMPOraL 12y ago
> If you create a community like Microsoft's four years ago in which for every team, the "least qualified"(even if all of them are great) is fired, you create a culture of threat and terror, and people are going to protect their selves. The other side of the very same coin is when you award top X% people for performance. When you fix the reward/punishment pool, people have much less incentive to work together, because every help you give to someone else is reducing your own chance of success. I'm not sure why people set up such incentive structures. Is it greed? Or some kind of stupid belief that a little bit of competition will help? Yes, if you let every good performer get a bonus regardless of how many others are also getting it you'll have to pay out a lot of bonuses, because you'll have a lot of good performers. But isn't it exactly what you want to have?
- pmorici 12y ago
  "I'm not sure why people set up such incentive structures. Is it greed?" I think it comes down to managerial laziness and social discomfort. Giving someone a bad performance review or dealing with poor performance is inherently an uncomfortable social interaction. Once a manager acknowledges that someone isn't meeting standards organizations usually have a process by which they need to help that person improve or eventually fire them which is a lot of extra work for that manager. In other words it is a way to force managers into dealing with bad employees instead of letting problems fester.
- emsy 12y ago
  I recently watched an interesting video of an austrian economy professor, who came to the conclusion that our current competition based society is in effect because in the past competition was crucial to survive, and thus people competed. Our current generation competes because we grew up in a competitive society and in order to be truly cooperative, cooperation needs to become a part of our "memes". Here's the video, unfortunately in German and no subtitles are available yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oouoee9UvEc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oouoee9UvEc. I think the main problem with group bonuses is that those who know/think they worked harder will feel treated unfairly. I have no information on how group bonuses are perceived or what their effects are. However, I personally think that the main problems come from teams who don't share the same spirit/culture and thus, those problems also exist in individually rewarded teams.
idlewords 12y ago
"People like Japanese or Chinese"? Seriously?
- rational-future 12y ago
  Seriously what? Is it politically incorrect to mention racial differences at all now?
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    This is not even a racial difference, it's a cultural one. But yes, it seems that people want the reality to conforms to political correctness by pretending that biological and cultural differences between sexes, races, countries, age, etc. don't exist and shunning everyone who doesn't agree.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Can I raise my hand here and concede that I do tend to shun people who want to talk on HN about the "biological and cultural" differences between sexes and races? No apologies. Just wanted to confirm your suspicion.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Sure; but since you raised your hand could you also share your reasons? I don't wish to debate them. I just can think of several people could have and would like to know what are yours.
        tptacek 12y ago
        Candidly and concisely: I think the arguments about the importance of differences between sexes and races are so dumb that the only way anyone could want to introduce them into a discussion is if they are in some way broken.
        12y ago
lumberjack 12y ago
I do not think it has much to do with culture as much as it has to do with the incentive structures in place. I have never studied outside Europe but even in Europe I have experienced grading systems were you are praised for your achievement with respect to your mates and others were you are praised for your achievement objectively. Honour titles are usually objective, and very hard to get while grants and scholarships are subjective, there is a quota set per year and it goes to the best that that year has to offer. But yes, sometimes the incentive structures set up are really counter productive. If the work is supposed to be a team effort then you shouldn't praise anyone less than the whole team for their achievement. Otherwise, what incentive do the team members have to work together?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

kghose 12y ago

I have worked in three research institutions in the US - At the University of Maryland, at Harvard University and at Mass General Hospital. While there were cultural differences as well as individual differences, my main observation was that people were eager to share and teach one another. This was my main attraction to academic life. Cross-disciplinary collaboration was also very encouraged. The level of secrecy, however, probably depends on field. I was in neurophysiology + cognitive science. Colleages in the molecular biology field complained of competition and secretiveness from colleagues. I suspect that this extends not just to the US but to Europe as well. I knew of a researcher from Denmark in a certain field who was known to 'sit' on a certain resource and control access to it to reduce competition and further their own name.

paulhauggis 12y ago

So it should be fine in a university setting that one person does all the work and the rest just copy it? The reason this is frowned upon is because the people that just copy don't end up gaining the valuable skills they are there for in the first place. I've worked in many group settings in school, and this is usually what ends up happening if left unchecked (1 or 2 people doing 90% of the work and the rest just copying it. I don't know about you, but I don't want any "leechers" working with me in the workplace. Why would I do your job for you and then not get the credit? In a work setting, I've been in groups where we had to share knowledge (each person is working on a different part and you need to combine them together). This is much different than what you are describing.

calibraxis 12y ago
If we wish to remove such dysfunctions, best to drop the grading system (to the extent stamping a number on your forehead affects your future life). I do exactly this, and none of us "cheat". Cheating is a meaningless concept to us anyway; using someone else's work is as silly as stealing from your own wallet. As for avoiding leechers, they're often called "managers" and "bosses". (I say that as a manager. Structurally, and in the vast majority of cases, they're leeches.)

TeMPOraL 12y ago

> If you create a community like Microsoft's four years ago in which for every team, the "least qualified"(even if all of them are great) is fired, you create a culture of threat and terror, and people are going to protect their selves. The other side of the very same coin is when you award top X% people for performance. When you fix the reward/punishment pool, people have much less incentive to work together, because every help you give to someone else is reducing your own chance of success. I'm not sure why people set up such incentive structures. Is it greed? Or some kind of stupid belief that a little bit of competition will help? Yes, if you let every good performer get a bonus regardless of how many others are also getting it you'll have to pay out a lot of bonuses, because you'll have a lot of good performers. But isn't it exactly what you want to have?

pmorici 12y ago
"I'm not sure why people set up such incentive structures. Is it greed?" I think it comes down to managerial laziness and social discomfort. Giving someone a bad performance review or dealing with poor performance is inherently an uncomfortable social interaction. Once a manager acknowledges that someone isn't meeting standards organizations usually have a process by which they need to help that person improve or eventually fire them which is a lot of extra work for that manager. In other words it is a way to force managers into dealing with bad employees instead of letting problems fester.
emsy 12y ago
I recently watched an interesting video of an austrian economy professor, who came to the conclusion that our current competition based society is in effect because in the past competition was crucial to survive, and thus people competed. Our current generation competes because we grew up in a competitive society and in order to be truly cooperative, cooperation needs to become a part of our "memes". Here's the video, unfortunately in German and no subtitles are available yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oouoee9UvEc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oouoee9UvEc. I think the main problem with group bonuses is that those who know/think they worked harder will feel treated unfairly. I have no information on how group bonuses are perceived or what their effects are. However, I personally think that the main problems come from teams who don't share the same spirit/culture and thus, those problems also exist in individually rewarded teams.

idlewords 12y ago

"People like Japanese or Chinese"? Seriously?

rational-future 12y ago
Seriously what? Is it politically incorrect to mention racial differences at all now?
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  This is not even a racial difference, it's a cultural one. But yes, it seems that people want the reality to conforms to political correctness by pretending that biological and cultural differences between sexes, races, countries, age, etc. don't exist and shunning everyone who doesn't agree.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Can I raise my hand here and concede that I do tend to shun people who want to talk on HN about the "biological and cultural" differences between sexes and races? No apologies. Just wanted to confirm your suspicion.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Sure; but since you raised your hand could you also share your reasons? I don't wish to debate them. I just can think of several people could have and would like to know what are yours.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        Candidly and concisely: I think the arguments about the importance of differences between sexes and races are so dumb that the only way anyone could want to introduce them into a discussion is if they are in some way broken.
        12y ago

lumberjack 12y ago

I do not think it has much to do with culture as much as it has to do with the incentive structures in place. I have never studied outside Europe but even in Europe I have experienced grading systems were you are praised for your achievement with respect to your mates and others were you are praised for your achievement objectively. Honour titles are usually objective, and very hard to get while grants and scholarships are subjective, there is a quota set per year and it goes to the best that that year has to offer. But yes, sometimes the incentive structures set up are really counter productive. If the work is supposed to be a team effort then you shouldn't praise anyone less than the whole team for their achievement. Otherwise, what incentive do the team members have to work together?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]