Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
Traditional wisdom justifiedly demands that I be scared of dying the 13th of each month:
yes 50%
no 50%

Votes: 6

 An instance of Western cultural chauvinism

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jan 08, 2002
 Comments:
Reuters Health, in a story condescendingly titled Superstitious May Increase Their Risk of Death, reports on research reported in the British Medical Journal that suggests that Chinese and Japanese in the USA are at greater risk of dying of a heart attack on the 4th day of the month, a day traditionally regarded as unlucky by people from both cultures.
racism

More stories about Racism
Kill Yr Idols: Nelson Mandela
Good Golly
Genetic Warfare and Matrilineal Cultures
A short quiz
Open Source? More Like Openly Racist
Boom City, USA

More stories by
em

Yumi bai spikim Tok Pisin nau!
The Adequacy.org Guide to Cheap Legal Highs: Garlic
The Adequacy.org Guide to Cheap Legal Highs: Capsaicin
German, the language of the Nazis
Women responsible for society's ills
Chile to bomb the U.S.A.
Review: Fred Fortin, 'Le Plancher des Vaches'
The Adequacy.org Guide to Airplane Hijacking in the Post-WTC Era
Hijacked plane crash destroys Canary Wharf; Shocked Americans ask, `What's Canary Wharf?'
Review: Willie Col?n, `Lo Mato'
Starving Afghanis Flock to Bombing Targets for Free Food
Genetic Warfare and Matrilineal Cultures
Some major flaws in Evolutionary Theory
Classic rerelases: Caf? Tacuba, Les Cowboys Fringants
The sky: a revisionist examination
The Adequacy.org Guide to the Cuisines of the World: Poutine
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, terrorism, and decolonisation
On criminal language and the word `hacker'
On why Pearl is not like natural language (Part I)
World Music Review: Ozomatli, `Embrace the Chaos'
This interpretation of the facts is extremely condescending: the researchers attribute the excess mortality to psychological stress brought about by superstitious beliefs. The Chinese and Japanese are cast as primitive superstitious brutes, whose irrational belief system condemns to unneeded death. Comparing this fact to a related non-fact, the failure of AngloUSians to have higher cardiac mortality on the 13th of the month, the researchers cite the coincidence of the Chinese word for the number four having a similar sound to the word for death, which does not hold between the words "death" and "thirteen" in English. Can you say ad hoc?

However, the fact remains that the data supports an alternate interpretation, one which would validate the victims of this research: the 4th of the month is indeed an unlucky day for Chinese and Japanese. Instead of the belief causing the higher incidence of death, as the scientists assume without justification, the higher incidence of death could well justify the belief.

The data gives no grounds for preferring one interpretation over the other. We have a correlation between a belief widespread in a pair of cultures that some particular dates are unlucky, and mortality data that show that members of those groups do indeed die more from certain conditions on those dates. Now, the question is to find a cause for this correlation.

The scientists' answer's starting point, then, is the arrogant, culturalist assumption that the Chinese and Japanese have an inferior belief system, and whatever they may think about their increased mortality on these dates does not merit serious discussion. After all, scientists are the paragons of rationality, and whatever they believe is by definition on the right track; the Chinese and Japanese subjects, by comparison, are immigrant communities, working mostly in food service jobs, and, by golly, they can barely speak English! If they die at a higher rate than people from other cultures in these dates, it must be their fault. Thus the "explanation": "superstition" makes these people feel "stress", and the "stress" kills them, a case of the "Baskerville effect".

The researchers, doubtless embarassed, have to admit that their own culture, which they tacitly accept to be superior as part of the conditions under which our society empowers them to produce such "knowledge", has completely equivalent beliefs (the 13th), but no corresponding increase in deaths. This, however, instead of leading them to abandon their theory about the minorities, produces the aforementioned ad-hoc pseudoscientific explanation that in some unlawful and tenuous manner enlists psychology, cultural anthropology and linguistics.

To any anthropologically sophisticated observer, what's going on here is obvious: the researchers are fumbling to preserve the ideological preconceptions under which they operate. It is simply not culturally admissible for their research to reveal that the Western postenlightenment scientistic outlook only lets them comprehend the world through an elaborate social construction of reality, and does not, as ideology demands, reveal the structure of objective reality itself.

There is, however, a deeper reason why these scientists must reject the Chinese and Japanese interpretation of the facts, that the 4th of the month is an unlucky day for them. Remember, again, that AngloUSian culture has an equivalent belief about the 13th of the month. Yet, no increased mortality is observed for the AngloUSians.

What does this suggest? That while the Chinese and Japanese are correct about their belief about a day being unlucky, the AngloUSians are wrong. This is, of course, a politically dangerous conclusion in a country like the US, with a deeply segregationist culture. As such, the scientific establishment must resist it.

At least not all hope is lost. One response to the research article zeroes in on the labeling of the belief as a "superstition":

Philosophically, if not practically, one can not rule out the possibility that the accumulating experience of these two large nations gave solid reason to this belief. What if indeed some constituting, traumatic events in the history of these nations took place on the fourth of a given calender and the collective memory later perpetuated and reinforced the effect.
-- Izhar Ben-Shlomo, Visiting Researcher at Stanford University
This at least it recognizes the possibility of the Chinese and Japanese at some moment in their history having a good reason to believe that the 4th of the month is special. But it still slightly demeaning: instead of considering the cultures to be fundamentally irrational, it takes them to be in a sense "deeply traumatized," unable to cast away from memory past events which are irrelevant to the future (in the Western conception of it; the idea that the Chinese and Japanese may have different conceptions of temporality evades him), much like some poor chap who almost gets killed in a car accident is irrationally scared of cars for years to come. But still we see the refusal to take the cultures completely seriously.

I urge you all to respect and appreciate other cultures. Traditional wisdom, contrary to modern myth, is real, as I have striven to illustrate with just one example among thousands.


Chinese/Japanese Civilisations (none / 0) (#2)
by Elanthius on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 08:36:25 AM PST
I read with interest your analysis of these Eastern civilisations I also have been doing some studying of these cultures in my part time. Yours was a well written and informative piece. However, I must take issue with your conclusion which I find to be flawed in the most fundamental of ways.

You argue that the Chinese and Japanese cultures are not actually worse than western cultures and that the people of the East are not naturally superstitious without good cause. Sir, I think if you analyse the situation a little closer you will see where you are in error.

The Chinese are, in fact, superstitious, some might even say child-like in their belief in old wives tales (stories invented by grandmothers and older women in the early part of the 19th century which have since fallen into popular use) and magic. The question we must ask ourselves, as indeed you do in your article, is why is it that the Chinese and Japanese hold such preposterous beliefs? I think you, as have I, will come to the conclusion that it is because they are fundamentally less able to turn their minds to scientific thought than Westerners. Consider this, up until the late 18th Century the Chinese still had not discovered the wheel, much like the American Indians they stole this idea from conquering Western barbarians and armies. In fact, consider any scientific invention or great philosophical advance of the past 2 or 3 hundred years and you will see that the Easterners have been left far behind by the galloping scientific developments of the West.

It is clear that the Eastern mind is not one tuned to the idea of rational scientific thought, they are only capable of rudimentary scientific analysis and as such are subject to belief in all manner of hobgoblins, ghosts, and loch ness monsters.


Linguistics (4.00 / 1) (#4)
by Hegemonistic on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 08:58:08 AM PST
Ok. I'm sure your post will get a reaction.

I dissagree with much of what you said, but would like to explore the reasons Westerners seem to have eclipsed Easterners.

I propose that it rests with linguistics and writing. Languages that will easily incorporate new words and ideas are superior to those that must form them by combining a series of existing and often dissimilar words. The pictographic nature of some languages further reduces the introduction of new concepts.


unbelievable (1.00 / 1) (#5)
by nathan on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 09:59:48 AM PST
Languages that will easily incorporate new words and ideas are superior to those that must form them by combining a series of existing and often dissimilar words. The pictographic nature of some languages further reduces the introduction of new concepts.

This is bogus and reductionist. Have you ever heard of Marshall McLuhan? Do you have any evidence for this, or is it wind out of your bottom?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Please explain (none / 0) (#8)
by Hegemonistic on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 11:53:02 AM PST
Are you refering to Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980), author of The Medium is the Massage?

I don't have any evidence except my personal experience. I don't know of any studies in this area, but I haven't looked for them either. Show me my error.

My friends that speak Mandarin have complained about having to say "The Lighting Bolt that Serves as a Medium for the Movement of Writing" instead of e-mail. Francophiles around the world constantly battle the "Englishifying" of their language. Why? Because there is a better way.

Ever wonder why languages die? They don't adapt. I'm sure you've heard the stories about the Eskimo language having more than 50 words for snow. They have what they need. How many pictographs represent www?


yeah, that's the guy (none / 0) (#10)
by nathan on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 12:47:10 PM PST
But I was actually alluding to the section in the first part of Understanding Media where he discusses the content implications of "character" vs. "alphabet." His discussion is a good point of departure when combined with a serious technical study of the written Chinese language. (For example, most Westerners are unaware that about 90% of Chinese logograms [word-symbols] are a composite, one portion of which gives the meaning and the other the pronunciation.)

It's obvious you haven't looked for studies, because you totally mischaracterized Chinese. If your explanation holds any water at all, please harmonize to it these objections:
  • Throughout Western (and Chinese) history, illiteracy has been more common than literacy. What has writing to do with the adaptability of a language or culture if literacy is not widespread?
  • What about Korean, which has had an extremely well-designed alphabet since 1443? Surely, if the factor you propose was of any significance, we'd have seen Korea pull ahead of such backward nations as Japan.

    Sorry I came off so harshly in my original post, but you really are talking out your ass. You haven't shown a leg to stand on yet. Places do exist for uninformed, navel-gazing intellectual masturbation, but I frown on it here.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

  • I think you are missing the point (none / 0) (#12)
    by philipm on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 09:43:53 PM PST
    but first let me deal with your language problem.

    It is clear tha literacy and language are not the positive forces they are portrayed to be in the western world. In fact, it was only the chinese who were stupid enought to read books, and to read the notices telling them where to go to participate in the study(!!! - must always take this into account when doing research about language) that have a problem tying their shoelaces on the fourth. Talk about illiterate, uncontrolled retarded research!

    Now back to the original point you made, which was that one shouldn't say that pictures make a language worse. As we've already seen "language" can not get much worse, so your idea of debating the relative merits of weasel vs cat turds misses the whole point of the article.


    --philipm

     
    Get your own leg (none / 0) (#16)
    by Hegemonistic on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 10:20:43 AM PST
    I proposed a reason for why the advent of recent inventions seems centered in Western society. I know it's simplistic, ignores many other factors and may even be incorrect.

    That's why I posted it -- show me the fallacy and I'll become a believer.

    I'm familiar with how pictographs are formed, and understand that "a picture is worth a thousand words". I don't believe a pictographic language lends itself to change. Why has Western language become the de facto language of science? Is it merely our hegemony or is there an inherent advantage?

    Let me "harmonize" with your objections:

    1. Literacy. Who are the inventors? The illiterate? Is a society pulled forward by the masses or the few? If most of an area can't read, does that make the language they are using bad? If a significant portion of the population doesn't read a language, does it cease to exist? I feel sorry for all the folks that weren't really speaking a language, just because they couldn't read. Communication is the goal. Easy communication is an advantage. I believe we are arguing two separate points. You are arguing the worth of the written Chinese language. I'm proposing a reason for Western advancement.

    2. You site the instance of a society with a "newer" alphabet and challenge me to contrast it with a society using an older alphabet. Unfortunately, you miss my point. I don't care how old the language is. I only care that it is easy to change and update. Based on my assumption, Korean society wouldn't be significantly better than Japanese, unless there was a significant change in how ideas, inventions and economics are expressed AND one of the alphabets made the expression of the new ideas easier.



    boat person from k5? (none / 0) (#17)
    by nathan on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 11:43:01 AM PST
    This post could have come from the worst, most pox-rotted pestholes of k5. I feel dirty all over responding to it.

    I proposed a reason for why the advent of recent inventions seems centered in Western society.

    Even if I ignore the slovenly grammar and the substitution of "reason" for the more correct "argument," this statement is absurd. It appears the poster is trying to claim that Western technical progress was partially driven by Western linguistic flexibility. The Western world has only enjoyed a leading position technologically since about the XVth century. The Chinese discovered all kinds of things first (paper, gunpowder, magnetism, printing, sophisticated metallurgy, and the unified state, to name a few.) Chinese agriculture and military organization was vastly superior until the industrial and agricultural revolutions in the west. In short, in order to claim linguistic flexibility to be a credible agent for driving technological progress, you'd have to demonstrate countervailing factors holding the West back and pushing China forward throughout all periods of recorded history, even assuming that "Western languages are more flexible than Chinese," which believe me remains very much in question.

    Perhaps you're unaware of the more conventional argument that humanism and its bastard child materialism made the scientific, and thus the attendant technological revolutions possible. For reference, the humanist movement per se developed in the West just before the Renaissance.

    I know it's simplistic, ignores many other factors and may even be incorrect.

    In other words, it's an unresearched bit of high-flown wankery, which is precisely what I've said for three posts now.

    I reject your (unresearched, unsupported) assertion that inventors "pull society forward." Which inventor sat down and devised the three-crop rotation system that nearly doubled farming efficiency in medieval England? Which inventor crafted the unified state, that (through concentration of resources) allowed France and Spain to smash Italy in the XVth century?

    Your argument was originally that written Chinese was unadaptable[1]. Tied to that assertion is one that Chinese is a failure in the modern world because of its failure to adapt. This is such a bad idea that it hurts my brain. Chinese is adapting just fine, actually, just as did English (by losing its identity as Anglo-Saxon) after the Norman invasion. Korean is also a very adaptable language, and strictly in written terms is frankly much better than our lousy Roman alphabet.

    You should do a little bit of research before spewing borderline-racist nonsense with no substantiation other than your dirty little pseudo-educated imagination.

    [1] Chinese is by no stretch of the imagination pictographic. I already said that, but in case you missed it, 90% of Chinese characters are logograms, not pictograms. About 7% are ideograms, with the remainder (3%) being pictographic. Here's an exercise for you. Draw three pictures representing the idea that "at birth, all men are by nature good."[2]

    [2] (the opening sentence of the Three Character Classic.)

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    Another Urban Legend (none / 0) (#18)
    by doofus on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 01:15:10 PM PST
    I'm sure you've heard the stories about the Eskimo language having more than 50 words for snow.

    No they don't. And so, of course, your entire argument is suspect since you don't bother to do even the minimal amount of research that a site like this demands.


     
    bullshit (none / 0) (#22)
    by em on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 05:09:18 PM PST
    Ever wonder why languages die? They don't adapt.

    This is utter bullshit, as cursory examination of an introductory book on language death (or maybe a more popular account) reveals. The primary factor in language death is the social and economic assymetry between the group that loses its language and the group whose language they adopt.

    I'm sure you've heard the stories about the Eskimo language having more than 50 words for snow. They have what they need.

    While acknowledging doofus' point that this is a bullshit claim, I should point out that many "Eskimo" languages are seriously endagered (e.g. Alaskan Yupik; I have a friend who did fieldwork on a village, and she's afraid the youngest generation will not learn it). Fairly ironic, given
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


     
    Pictographic alphabet (none / 0) (#7)
    by Elanthius on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 11:27:15 AM PST
    This is an interesting point that I had not previously considered. It may well be true that the very nature of the written language is what has held back the Eastern nations for so very long. We can clearly see that studying in these languages is unnecesarily complex such that it becomes impractical, if not downright impossible to develop complex scientific advances.

    As evidence of this we see that many Asians abandon their entire culture and clumsy written language and move to America to study where they form a large proportion of math majors in US universities.


     
    eastern languages: japanese (none / 0) (#20)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 03:27:14 PM PST
    Elanthius and Hegemonistic appear trollish, or is that british?

    anyway, besides nathan, nobody here seems to know much about eastern languages. nathan does well with chinese, but here is the story for japanese.

    modern japanese does not attempt to represent every new word and concept with kanji. i believe the practice was not even universal pre-war, as many japanese words rely on hiragana (phonic alphabet used for 'native', or simply ancient, versus new, 'foreign' words).

    sean broderick


    Offensive Accusations (none / 0) (#23)
    by Elanthius on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 11:02:54 AM PST
    Mr Broderick,

    I must say that I am extremely offended by your accusation that I might be a troll and I hereby demand that you withdraw your libellous and unnecesary comments.

    I can only imagine that it must have caused by jealousy of my British citizenship and so, given the appropriate apology I may consider forgiving you. I can certainly understand why it must be frustrating for you trying to maintain the high standards that an intellectual site like this demands.


    sigh (none / 0) (#24)
    by nathan on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 11:48:03 AM PST
    The first rule of attention-getting is to be funny, and if you can't be funny, be weird. You are neither.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    the accusation was out of line. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 06:28:10 PM PST
    It's fair to ask for an apology.




    ahh (none / 0) (#27)
    by nathan on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 06:50:18 PM PST
    But who was looking for attention? Think carefully now.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    Citizen (none / 0) (#28)
    by First Incision on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 09:10:35 PM PST
    "British citizenship?" How dare you? I am an American Citizen. You sir, are a British subject. In fact, once, In England, a priest of the Roman Catholic Church reminded the parish that they were Subjects of the Crown, not citizens. Luckily, I was just a foreigner there from some religion.
    _
    _
    Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

    Yes, citizen thank you very much (none / 0) (#38)
    by Elanthius on Fri Jan 11th, 2002 at 10:16:43 PM PST
    Thank you for that link, if you had read past the first paragraph you would have discovered the following
    9. In general, since 1 January 1983, it has been possible to acquire British citizenship automatically: (a) by birth in the UK to a parent who is either a British citizen or settled in the UK under immigration law;
    In fact, I've heard this stated so many times by presumably delusional Americans that the widely acclaimed theory that Americans lack the ability to concentrate on anything or more than 30 seconds is becoming all the more apparently true.


     
    Dragging along... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 01:04:02 AM PST
    up until the late 18th Century the Chinese still had not discovered the wheel

    So your theory is that the round spoked things on this didn't actually rotate, but that the horses simply dragged the stupid thing over the ground anyway?


    No my theory... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Elanthius on Fri Jan 11th, 2002 at 10:25:07 PM PST
    is that that is a computer generated image and not in actual fact any kind of real wheeled contraption at all. I would suspect whoever created that fake image to be attempting to spread another of these liberalist myths you hear so much about these days.


     
    Would you object to the study if? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Hegemonistic on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 08:39:59 AM PST
    Would you object to the study if all mention of linguistics and non-Asian statistics were removed?

    Maybe I'm just missing the boat, but what if the study was conducted like this:

    1. Examine the statistics of heart-disease related Asian deaths.

    2. Notice that a significant increase occurs in the first week of the month.

    3. Postulate reasons for the increase.

    Maybe the statistical population receives a monthly paycheck on the first of the month, buys a big dinner, feeds an unhealthy habit and contributes to an impending heart attack. I know many caucasians that do something similar every month. Maybe stress and worry about paying monthly bills tips the balance. Maybe it is a true "Baskerville Effect."

    Yes, the article is racist and makes too many assumptions, but I don't believe that Atropos cuts the Asian line more often on the fourth without a reason. Give me another reason so I can set my inquiring mind at rest.


    well you see, my illiterate friend (2.50 / 2) (#13)
    by philipm on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 09:46:33 PM PST
    [post censored by adequacy editors for excessive open mindedness]


    --philipm

     
    Ah, yeah. The `Scientific Method'. (none / 0) (#32)
    by em on Fri Jan 11th, 2002 at 02:25:38 AM PST
    Would you object to the study if all mention of linguistics and non-Asian statistics were removed?

    Yes.

    Maybe I'm just missing the boat, but what if the study was conducted like this: 1. Examine the statistics of heart-disease related Asian deaths. 2. Notice that a significant increase occurs in the first week of the month. 3. Postulate reasons for the increase.

    And? You can postulate all the reasons you like. The act of so doing doesn't make any of them right.

    Yes, I know that in the West this is called the "Scientific Method", and it supposedly creates objective knowledge. Nonsense.

    Yes, the article is racist and makes too many assumptions, but I don't believe that Atropos cuts the Asian line more often on the fourth without a reason. Give me another reason so I can set my inquiring mind at rest.

    I already gave you one: the 4th of the month is an unlucky day for Chinese and Japanese.
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


    Groucho: (none / 0) (#37)
    by nathan on Fri Jan 11th, 2002 at 03:00:51 AM PST
    the 4th of the month is an unlucky day for Chinese and Japanese.

    "Well, what about my son? He's only half Jewish. Can he go in up to his waist?"

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    Sometimes doing a little research on your own will (3.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Mint Waltman on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 11:19:22 AM PST
    The scientists' answer's starting point, then, is the arrogant, culturalist assumption that the Chinese and Japanese have an inferior belief system

    ...explain everything. While you bend over backwards to discredit what you deem cultural relativism in the name of multiculturalism, you neglect the facts staring you in the face. God forbid one should come out and say that the good old US of A is superior to a couple of countries populated primarily by Godless communists and schoolgirl fetishists. According to the CIA World Fact Book, both China and Japan are less than 1% Christian- and I fear that that 1% figure may be severly deluded considering the troublesome work of the worlds most prolific snake-oil salesmen.


    Ouch. (none / 0) (#9)
    by hauntedattics on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 12:27:18 PM PST
    Snake oil salesmen? Harsh words for your own religious forebears.

    Where would Protestants be without those damn' Papists to kick around, anyway?



     
    you see its like this (none / 0) (#11)
    by philipm on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 09:30:11 PM PST
    If you do a study and have the study "prove" bad things about spooks, degos, waps, spics, white trash, chinese, japanese, etc than someone is going to object that you have unfairly labelled them. They would be half right.

    On the one hand, being American is all about leaving your corrupt immoral venal European and Asian heritage. When you come here, you can make fun of the queen, the french, the emperor, whatever, and call yourself an American. And God help any idiot that thinks you are really from back there instead of here.

    On the other hand, before you can stop being a drunk illiterate frenchman, or before you can succesfully turn "r" into "l" and be thought of as American, you have to pay your dues. I want to see some respect for the rest of America. I want to see you waving a flag.

    So the question we need to ask is: Did these chinese, japanese and so-called researchers pay their dues? Note that there are 3 groups here, not two.
    Well, the slanty eyes are probably OK, and didn't mean to denigrate the fine USian culture by falling all over themselves on the fourth. They can become Americans if they try hard enough. Besides, when they get scared enough of our bombing them with nukes, they will smarten up right quick.

    However, the researchers have CLEARLY not paid their dues and must be kicked out immediately (if they were ever Americans in the first place).

    The fact that these researchers have murdered scores of Chinese and Japanese in the course of doing their research by stressing them out, has me very upset. I say we take these researchers, cement them into a tower, and fly a plane into it.
    This is the only rational way to deal with the situation.



    --philipm

     
    I think it is you who is condecending (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 07:01:29 AM PST
    You assume that chinese culture is inherently better because it is ancient and mystical, and more importantly you do not live with it on a daily basis or understand it at a fundamental level.

    Which of course neither do I. But I do know that Chinese medicine is far more popular in the West than in China, where Western medicine (perhaps wrongly) dominates.

    I think it is just as patronising to assume a culture is somehow "better" for its mysticism as it is to dismiss it as unscientific. Which, by the way, is something people are saying less and less about China and Japan these days.


    You must have read the wrong article (none / 0) (#19)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 01:21:59 PM PST
    >>You assume that chinese culture is inherently better because it is ancient

    What made you come to that bizarre conclusion?

    >>and more importantly you do not live with it on a daily basis or understand it at a fundamental level.

    Huh??? Or do you know the author or do you somehow just assume he is not Japanese or Chinese?

    >>I think it is just as patronising to assume a culture is somehow "better" for its mysticism as it is to dismiss it as unscientific.

    The article does not say it is better because of its mysticism. On the contrary, westen cultures have similar beliefs about the 13th of the month that the Chinese and Japanese have about the 4th. The difference is that according to the data, the Japanese seem to be right where the westerners have no data to back up their beliefs.





    I guess I just got over-excited... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 11:49:33 AM PST
    ...by the fact that many people in the west DO assume Japanese culture to be mystical and therefore better, but I admit that the author doesn't say (or imply) so.

    >do you know the author or do you somehow just >assume he is not Japanese or Chinese?

    I assume it. Crass I agree, but I bet I'm right.

    >The difference is that according to the data, the Japanese seem to be right where the westerners have no data to back up their beliefs.

    The Japanese do indeed seem to be right in their belief that the fourth is an unlucky day - the study supports this! But the study also showed that this unluckiness manifests itself in a particular way (coronary heart attack).

    Now to say that people of Japanese origin are more likely to die in this way on the fourth, completely independant of the fact that it is an unlucky day, is a very bold claim indeed.

    The suggestion that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy is a far more reasonable claim. And as yet, is not patronising anybody as far as I, in my ignorant, rational western way, can see.

    So perhaps the 'offensive' suggestion is that the Japanese are overtly stressed by the unlucky day as a result of the word for four sounding like that for death. Nope, not offensive yet.

    The researchers present this information as significant, and do not stress mysticism in Japanese culture (or in fact any other cultural differences).

    I wonder if westerners would suffer more stress on "death day" than thursday?

    Can we not treat differences like this revealed by scientific research as interesting opportunities to understand more about our own and other cultures, rather than get up on our soap-boxes about percieved patronism? This is why I believe the author to be condecending - leaping to the defense of the Japanese... could they not do it themselves (OK I continue my assumption of the authors origins)? And did he not see the names of the researchers?

    PS I apologise for the use of "Japanese" as a term for Japanese/Chinese, and acknowledge my own ignorance of both cultures.


    you still don't get it (none / 0) (#29)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 11th, 2002 at 12:57:37 AM PST
    The authors of the Reuters article accuse ethnic groups of being superstitious. Here is the definition of superstition:
    From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]: superstition n : an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear [syn: {superstitious notion}]
    In other words, they say these groups are "irrational." However you look at it, that is a negative stereotype.

    Why is it so difficult for you to understand that some days are unlucky? The data certainly seems to support that conclusion.


    I hope you're not suggesting (none / 0) (#30)
    by nathan on Fri Jan 11th, 2002 at 01:26:39 AM PST
    that a belief must be "rational" in order to be "correct."

    Nathan (still working late; it's bloody 4:15 am)
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    True (none / 0) (#35)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 11th, 2002 at 02:48:12 AM PST
    It would be absurd to believe that only rational things are correct. Everyone understands that there are some questions that can't be answerred through reason alone.

    None the less, I think you will agree that it is degrading to call some one "superstitious?"



    depends (none / 0) (#36)
    by nathan on Fri Jan 11th, 2002 at 02:58:14 AM PST
    If it says more about her than it says about you, why should you even care that she's a jerk?

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    I was talking about the research, not Reuters (none / 0) (#34)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 11th, 2002 at 02:46:48 AM PST
    >The authors of the Reuters article accuse ethnic groups of being superstitious.

    And em is quite right to point out the negative connotations of this. I argue that the researchers themselves (and their conclusions) were not condescending.

    >Why is it so difficult for you to understand that some days are unlucky? The data certainly seems to support that conclusion.

    The data shows that you are more likely to die IN A PARTICULAR WAY on certain dates, NOT that such dates are unlucky for a variety of reasons. So as I said, the Japanese are correct, such days ARE unlucky.
    Should we leave it at that, and not bother to ask why? Perhaps some would like to, instead imbuing Japanese culture with some special understanding of this unlucky day (superstiion? mysticism?). This is where I felt em suggested Japanese culture was somehow better as a result of mysticism, as I expressed so poorly in my original post.


     
    Yes (none / 0) (#31)
    by em on Fri Jan 11th, 2002 at 02:19:36 AM PST
    I think it is just as patronising to assume a culture is somehow "better" for its mysticism as it is to dismiss it as unscientific.

    Yes. I am happy I didn't do that anywhere in the article; I would have been no better than the researchers if I had!
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


     
    You miss the most blatant part.... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 11th, 2002 at 02:34:44 AM PST
    Sir,

    I must commend your subtle take on this incident. However, I must regretfully pour forth my opinion that your subtlety has come at the cost of forestry gestalt unattentiveness (or, in vulgar terms, "missing the forest for the trees").

    Indeed, there is a blatant exhibition of racism involved of which you fail to take note, despite the great credit which accrues to you intellectually nonetheless. For can you not notice how, in the title of the Reuters Health story, in plain view, the word "superstitious" is used to establish reference to an aggregate of persons who, as horifically (to the concious reader) revealed subsequently in this hallowed reportage, consists of no more and no less than the Chinese and Japanese peoples?

    May you live in interesting times, dear Sir.


     
    Reality (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 10:52:22 AM PST
    I lived in China for six years and am married to a Chinese woman. I can confidently say that the fear of the number 4 in Chinese culture is far deeper and more widespread than the fear of the number 13 in the West. Virtually every Chinese person I know, including those with advanced college education and world travel experience, admit to a high degree of discomfort around the number 4.
    There is also a dazzling variety of beliefs, rooted in Chinese medicine and tradition, that simply have no scientific basis. After the recent birth of my son, my Chinese in-laws had dozens of dos and don'ts for my wife. An example is they insisted that, after a 37-hour labor, she not wash her hair for weeks! Of course she did wash her hair anyway, to great protest from her parents. The fear was that "cold" -- a major element in Chinese medicine -- would enter through her scalp and cause all kinds of physical problems. Apart from the sheer discomfiture of going around with nasty hair, my wife also knew that the grime and oil on her hair probably posed a major germ threat to our newborn.
    The critic of the researchers who studied the correlation of increased heart attacks on the 4th of the month doesn't seem to actually be familiar with Chinese culture or to have spent any time looking into it.
    There are also two other mistakes raised in other posts: one person claims that "e-mail" in Chinese has to be rendered as some complicated phrase involving lightning bolts and other nonsense. This is rubbish. The word is easily rendered as "dianxin", literally "electronic letter". His hypothesis that the pictographic nature of Chinese has hampered scientific progress is not new, but my personal experience suggests it is not correct, either. In fact, the character set of Chinese is remarkably versatile in coming up with ways to describe new concepts. Unlike say, Japanese, in which say, baseball is rendered as "basubaru", Chinese almost always finds a way to translate foreign or new ideas into native concepts. Thus telephone is "dianhua", or "electric speech" and baseball is "leiqiu" or "bangqiu" ("stick-ball"). And no, a Chinese doesn't literally think of a telephone as "electric speech" any more than we think of a phonograph as "sound picture". The new word is swallowed whole as a new concept. I was continually amazed at the beauty and elegance with which scientific or Western concepts had been translated into Chinese.
    The second posted fallacy is the idea that Chinese medicine is far more popular here than in China, where Western treatments rule the day. While it is true that Western medicine is widespread, virtually every Chinese swears by some practice of Chinese medicine. Virtually all. It is so common that herbs, supplements, treatments and apparatus (like accupuncture or accupressure items) are available everywhere and in all major department stores. I don't know where that poster got the idea that the Chinese don't use their own medicinal traditions, but it's utter nonsense.


    Thanks for the Dose of Reality (none / 0) (#41)
    by Hegemonistic on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 12:29:14 PM PST
    I retract my previous comments. I listened to my few friends that speak Mandarin and believed what they said about their difficulties translating technical concepts. I don't know why they would mislead me.

    Please show me a reputable source for your information. I admit that I have only anecdotal evidence for my claim.


    translation (none / 0) (#42)
    by nathan on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 06:27:10 PM PST
    "I was talking out of my ass with that pictographic crap."

    Take it wank5est.org.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.