Hacker News Reader

Comment by chaostheory | Hacker News Reader

> The common perception that China is incapable of innovation needs re-examining.

No one is saying Chinese people can't innovate. The real question is whether Chinese people can innovate while inside China. (I wonder what percentage of current captains of industry in China studied abroad?) Why? Because innovation is essentially disrupting and rebelling against the status quo. ie breaking rules, disobedience, opposition to the norm

When you demand that your people bow and obey, and imprison people like A1 WW, this goes against promoting and nurturing innovation

https://steveblank.com/2012/11/06/entrepreneurs-as-dissident...

https://medium.com/@they_made_that/innovations-secret-ingred...

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/22/never_before_published_isaac...

When your culture is very antagonistic towards people who don't like the status quo and forces them to carefully think about what they say and write, the culture itself becomes a big obstacle to innovation. When you run garbage likethe Great Firewall that limits the sharing of information, that's another strike against innovation. (Of course one way to mitigate the effects of authoritarian rule is by being really favorable towards immigration from places with the opposite culture.)

I guess Shenzen is a place that's figuratively where "the mountains are high and the emperor is far away". I wonder how long before that changes?

View on HN

As a fellow Chinese who's been living in the West for a few years, I feel obligated to speak out against this:

Although I hold strong dissent against Chinese government in many aspects (in particular censorship, e.g. GFW), although I agree the traditional norm of Chinese culture and society does not commend rebellions, your argument is a slippery slope at its best. Essentially, you are exaggerating from both ends: a. going from political suppression and a humble (or even submissive, if you wish) culture to suppression on technical innovation; b. reading too much from the so-called SV culture and success stories, so much so to draw a strong equivalence between innovation and (social) disruption.

For (a), as many peer comments have already stated, there are many counterexamples. Japan has a much more submissive culture and Russia has similarly, if not more, suppressive political atmosphere. Innovations still happen in both places. And I also suggest you to read more history to see how many innovations were achieved in unwelcoming environment. Yes, these are obstacles and might affect the scale and success of innovations, but obstacles exist everywhere (if there were no opposition, rebellions even wouldn't be called "rebellions" in SV), and small (in the sense of domain, e.g. purely technical) innovations are still innovations, which leads to the second point--

For (b), "disruption" is really a buzz word loved by VC, and there is a trend of extending such buzz word to contexts we would not use this word originally, for example an invention in a particular domain is now a "disruption" in that domain, which makes a ripple sound like a tide. Fundamental, social disruptions can be significantly harder in China, but that does not prevent other innovations, or if you prefer, "disruptions", from happening.

In a nutshell, you are stretching these two ends to force them to meet: the negative effect of political/cultural suppression --> impossible to innovate <-- the "disruptions" of innovations

And finally, pardon my language, your examples and references are utter nonsense. I know where you are trying to go from them, but they do not prove your point by any means.

As a native Chinese, I think the parent commenter knows China better (on the right track but far from being a real expert). The parent looks at this from an outsider's point of view with limited info resources. Now, many of us Chinese think we know ourselves better. But that's simply not the case. This age is one of the most reflection-less in our history. The progress of science constantly brought up different perspectives of the world and there is so little applied to how we Chinese look at ourselves and the world. And the groups reflect most are younger poor students and people involved in trading in finance. Those so called democracy movement leaders and thinkers/observers/writers are just jokes producing brain-dead bullshit begging for fundings from either the ruling party or its opponents, if not both. I ended up with giving up looking for real light from contemporary Chinese contents a few years ago since there was only silence. Probably talked too much here, haha.

As an Indian all I can say is don't even bother addressing western delusions about themselves. Time will be the judge on the quality of innovation a culture built on celebrity worship, instant gratification and mindless consumption can produce.

While I agree that your characterization of "innovation" might be accurate in terms of measures like column-inches or click-through rates in today's online media, I think history will look much more favorably on the lasting contemporary innovations from western nations that withstand the test of time.

While I have great hope for innovation in various Asian countries moving forward, I'm not sure that there will be many purely homegrown major innovations from these places for the next decade or three.

FWIW, I think that the catalyst for Asian innovation will be the exploration of areas that many religious westerners find inappropriate -- stem cell research, genetics research, etc. The question is whether then will be truly independent, or whether there will be a brain drain from the west that helps lay the foundation (much like Europeans did for the US in the twentieth century).

Regardless, we are in exciting times.

It does seem to have worked out well for them so far.

Because people in China and India don't have celebrities or Facebook accounts? If you want to be critical, at least try to be fair.

It's like knowing that the emperor has no clothes and letting him show his bare ass until the inevitable cold of winter claims him.

Maybe I should have elaborated more on a really sensitive issue. I'm not saying that it's impossible to climb Mt Everest with an extra 50lbs on your back that isn't useful for mountaineering, but it's much harder. i.e. Innovation may happen but the rate of innovation is much lower as well as the impact

If my post is 'utter nonsense' then prove it with better arguments

These comments remind me of the time when I refused to believe that Mao was behind a famine or the Cultural Revolution after years of living in the West; it got to the point where I was arguing with a professor in class...

Well, I'm not saying your entire post is nonsense, but rather your choice of examples and citations. And here again, the example that you used to refuse believe Mao contributed to the famine or cultural revolution has nothing to do with this discussion. And in your original post, those random success "secrets" you cited really don't help your argument.

My refusal to believe Mao did anything bad does matter and it is relevant. Emotion and pride will cloud introspection and it will blind you to what others see in plain sight. Denial does nothing to fix problems. Sure there are other places in Asia that share one of China's major problems that I've mentioned but I can't think of any place in Asia that has all of them.

If my argument is so weak, do you have any stats and facts to destroy it?

China is not Russian style system where oligarchs close to leader step in and steal your stuff if you get rich.

China resembles (British) monarchy of the old. There are laws, but they are not same for the common man and to the noble (60 million members of the communist party). If you steer away from the politics, you can be entrepreneur and become rich.

Corruption exists of course, but that's like taxation. You pay your taxes and bribes. Bribing can sometimes allow more freedoms than completely lawful society, because it allows more.

China has basically the same bioethical laws as the west, but they are not enforced because party does not care. China became the first country to approve the commercial production of a gene therapy.

Rule by law, not rule of law. Once you understand the difference between these two concepts, you'll understand China a bit better.

Rule of (arbitrary and capricious) man vs. rule of law is a similar distinction

That's not a particularly clear distinction, care to expand / unpack?

hazarding a guess, i expect he's saying rule by a privileged group using law as a tool, versus the (ideal) western conception of the rule of law, as a framework that everyone must operate within, equally subject and evenly applied

Thanks, that helps.

"Rule by law" is the use of law to control the people. You use laws as convenient to punish your enemies, but aren't particularly interested in enforcing laws fairly. It becomes more of the default whenever there is no independent judiciary to interpret the law, or an independent media to make sure the government stays honest.

"Rule of law" is the aspiration that we are used to in the west (fair application of the law, everyone is subject to the law, etc...). It isn't perfect, we often exist in between the two extremes, but our systems are set up to at least aspire to it, while the Chinese system self admittedly depends solely on the wisdom and benevolence of a singular ruling class (in this case, the top-down CPC).

With over a billion people in the country, the highest levels of leadership can't easily stop the kind of corruption that most businesses are victimized by: Extortion by local officials. It's like, they walk in to your factory, claim your fire extinguishers are not regulation, and demand that you buy a dozen of them from their friend and no one else, and it's going to cost you 50,000 RMB ($7k USD). And if you don't go and get them, right now, then they're taking the keys to your factory, kicking out all the employees (who you will still have to pay) and not letting anyone back in until you do. And it has to be cash. And no, you're not getting a receipt.

Or it will be things like, you order something, it's not delivered even close to spec, and the corrupt police make you pay for it anyway or else. Contracts are utterly meaningless. And of course this only starts happening when you start making money. And they'll know you're making money because the locals around you are definitely ratting you out and quite possibly in on it.

You need to have the right friends to avoid this, and those kind of friends cost money.

Our systems aren't perfect, but it's rare we have to put up with shit like that.

Still, I like it here. The cost of living is reasonable, the weather is good, it's a big city with lots of entertainment, and a lot of people are here doing stuff. Being right next to Hong Kong is also a big plus. Biggest downside is how bad the internet sucks.

Can I ask what you mean about the internet sucking? Is it censorship, quality of sites, or speed and reliability of service?

Everything is censored. You have to tunnel pretty much everything. Massive packet loss is par for the course. You can't have a routable address. You can't just fire up a VM in minutes, you can't even have a VM without a registered company with a license to run a web server.

Things we take for granted like attaching a 2mb file to an email or a simple Google search can take several minutes to accomplish.

Reddit, hackernews, quora aren't censored.

Correct. It's not everything, but it's a lot, and a lot of things that aren't censored load subresoures from things that are, so they're half broken without a VPN anyway.

And really.. having to wait 6 minutes just to attach an invoice to an email is infuriating, more so when it fails and you have to try again.

And don't even get me started on all the time wasted switching between various VPN endpoints and protocols to find the one that sucks the least in that moment.

I never bothered with vpns and just accepted that I could only use those sites at work on our corporate internet. Weird, I worked at MS and would use Bing at home, but I would use google at work because it was the only place I could use it (well, after it was blocked).

And actually, youku isn't that bad for video once figure out how to navigate it. Xiami for streaming music was also very effective. Still annoying, but I dealt.

This may or may not be true in some places in China at the moment you posted, who knows. But the internet in China is comprehensively sabotaged.

Oh, after living in china I know. Weird thing is, when I arrived in 2007 almost nothing was blocked. But after the 2008 olympics, they decided they didn't need to pretend to be open anymore. What's even weirder is that when I lived in china previously in 2002, CNN was blocked and nytimes wasn't. Now it's the other way around.

> Our systems aren't perfect, but it's rare we have to put up with shit like that.

I'd love to see a breakdown of the US economy, sketching which rules apply where. Including gray and black markets.

When a couple of Boston-NYC gray bus operators went legit, incumbent Greyhound fought them in various ways, including leveraging corruption in federal law enforcement. The sole battered survivor had to hire a DC lobbyist.

SpaceX is massively disrupting a large mature industry, while doing no defensive patenting at all. Apparently relying entirely on something like "you don't piss off US Senators and DoD".

There's a lot of fascinating texture to how the US economy is structured, but I've never seen a broadly scoped and roughly quantitative sketch.

SpaceX patenting ITAR-covered technology is a landmine of problems.

At least some of that may be simple circumstance. When GDP growth is at 7%, it makes more sense for the oligarchs to invest in whatever is hot than it does to steal (everyone's getting rich, why take the risk and make the enemies?).

The US remains mostly uncorrupt at 2.2%.

Russia's GDP growth is at 1.3% per my quick google search, which is well underneath inflation. If you're sitting at the top with a mostly asset-dominated income, you have to be stealing if you want to grow. So only the thieves win.

US has high levels of corruption at the top, it's just better hidden and less accessible to most people. The secret is changing how the rules operate instead of selective enforcement.

Corruption in this sense of the word is economic and quantifiable, we're not talking about policymaking and who bought off whichever party you hate. The US is near the bottom of the industrialized world in metrics like this.

This is independent of party and more obvious at the local level than national. Look into your local zoning some time.

When the rules says X must be farm land, but changing that so X can become tract housing means local developer can make a few million... Well that's a lot of power to hand some tiny group with minimal oversight. Supplying pencils etc to the local high schools can be a lot simpler if you know the right people...

>>US has high levels of corruption at the top, it's just better hidden and less accessible to most people.

It is hidden... in broad daylight. For example, what is lobbying, if not legalized corruption?

You know, there is justification for lobbying, and to some extent I would even say it is a strength of our society rather than a weakness.

Lobbying informs decision makers, in a non-neutral manner, about what they regulate from the perspective of people actually subject to the regulation produced. That is a very valuable thing if you compare it to the alternative. In societies where this is absent it leads to incredible inefficiency (just ask an old Dubai taxi driver about why a building was built, for instance. Prepare to be amazed).

Lobbying provides a form of feedback that would be very hard to acquire otherwise. Neither policymakers, nor the democratic public can realistically study the entire economy in sufficient detail to regulate it. But by definition, there are people who have made it their living to study, work and use parts of the economy, and they should be given access to policymakers before they get regulated.

And that's of course where it should stop. Oh well.

Like intuit lobbying for not making tax simple? Like Microsoft lobbying that US govt use their cloud? Or the big military suppliers lobbying to increase military budget? Or health insurance companies and big pharmacy lobbying hard so Americans would rather commit suicide than get proper healthcare?

The system has been effectively well gamed by the big cos and politicians.

Be careful. By excluding causes you disagree with from lobbying, you may well find yourself excluding causes that you do.

Should a group be allowed to lobby to keep/make abortion legal? To increase the number or amount of social support programs? To decrease the number or amount of same? Lobby for civil rights changes that have happened over the last 60 years (and those that still need implementation)? Lobby to increase (or abolish) the minimum wage? Lobby to exclude teaching young-Earth creationism (or evolution) in schools?

Lobbying is inherently done out of self-interest (or at least perceived self-interest). You point to examples where many people don't share that same interest, but if everyone did share the same interests, there would be no need to lobby for those interests, of course...

Lobbying is a abomination, and the argumentation for it not sound at all.

If you want a additional voice for the economic class within a democracy, assign them a fixed percentage of power (25 % percent of the seats in parliament e.g.), and let them vote every day in secret within that percentage with the taxes paid to the whole state . Suddenly, lobbyism does not look that necessary at all, does it? One can design systems that channel corrosive elements into a productive whole.

Yes the key word is 'at the top'. For example it is way harder and much more rare to bribe a police officer or a teacher to get out of a ticket or get better grades in the West. The difference is the pervasiveness and acceptance of corruption. This matters for innovation. When everyone doesn't respect the rule of law, then stuff like investing in intellectual property gets completely thrown out the door. In China's defense, the West is going the other extreme which isn't good either

> Corruption exists of course, but that's like taxation.

A few years ago, at an economics talk out of Harvard, the speaker suggested there were advantages for innovation in China-style vs US-style corruption. One was that when legislative bribes are mostly paid by large incumbent companies, instead of being more broadly sourced, there's more systematic use of regulatory capture to reduce competition and replace innovation with rent seeking. Caveats: it was a side comment, and it wasn't clear to me the topic was fully within their research focus.

Similar issues exist around patents. I recently heard a billion-ish hardware tech CEO describe a large defensive patent portfolio as "table stakes" for playing. Though I wonder if they meant "buy in".

> Bribing can sometimes allow more freedoms than completely lawful society, because it allows more.

Bribing allows one to buy more freedom, generally at the cost of those who don't pay. It's essentially pay-to-play.

One could argue that the Chinese system has more "devolved/decentralized" pay-to-play system as opposed to the US where the Federalization experiment (states allowed to experiment with different legal interpretation) has broken down.

> When you demand that your people bow and obey, and imprison people like A1 WW, this goes against promoting and nurturing innovation

This is a common misconception, especially by people who have never lived in China. Thinking political censorship means people are docile all spheres of life.

Chinese people are actually much more prone to rant and fight over everyday injustices: shopkeeper ripped you off, denied entrance somewhere, etc. etc. They just have to be careful not to publicly blame any politicians for the issue or try to organize some group activity to protest it.

Why do you think the government cracks down so hard? Because they're scared: massive and violent people rebellions have erupted throughout Chinese history.

Many Chinese people are also quite creative and innovative when it comes to making money and getting ahead. Some home cooks make deals with restaurants to let their patrons sample their homemade spices with their meals and to buy jars of it if they like it.

Others have started groups on Wechat where members pay to get advice on X topic (http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2015-11/13/content_22...). There are tons more examples like this. In fact, I'd argue it can be easier to get your idea started in China because regulations are lax and it's much easier to network to get what you need.

Also, just to point out, in the West, the majority of people aren't exactly "rebelling against the status quo" and showing "opposition to the norm" because they can march in a protest or sign a petition.

To make it extremely clear if it wasn't already obvious, I'm Chinese and I've lived both on the mainland and in South East Asia.

> This is a common misconception, especially by people who have never lived in China. They just have to be careful not to publicly blame any politicians for the issue or try to organize some group activity to protest it.

You've contradicted yourself pretty quickly; you haven't disputed my main point: people on the mainland on a whole are not willing to rebel and dissent against people and ideas that are above them like the authorities or even their own parents - this translates to other parts of industry and major schools of thought. For example, one of the reasons the Internet has a decentralized architecture is because its designers didn't want to give the US government centralized control over it. Bickering with your peers over trivial things doesn't count, willing to question your boss, teacher, or someone higher in the food chain is what matters.

That said I'm not saying that things can't or will never change. I'm just pointing out the major obstacles to innovation on the mainland.

> Also, just to point out, in the West, the majority of people aren't exactly "rebelling against the status quo" and showing "opposition to the norm"

Not everyone dissents, but there's a large enough portion of the population that does to push innovation and progress.

> because they can march in a protest or sign a petition.

It's easy to make fun of it, but yeah this shows how ingrained rebellion and dissent is in our culture and accepted, which is one of the main foundations of innovation.

Check your history - the internet is decentralized because it was designed to withstand a nuclear attack, nothing to do with censorship.

Actually it was not designed for for nuclear attack either, but packet switched networks have intrinsic merits.

Packet switching is independent to the goal of interconnected network. It's just easier to do with packet switching.

Connection based internetworking also works, it's just a lot harder to make it work for the original use case.

I didn't say it was the sole reason, but 'one of the reasons'

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/10/06/353...

"But the people who were actually building this system, they weren't really thinking about Russian attacks. They were kind of rebellious anti-authoritarian types — they wanted power to the people. They called it 'computing power to the people.' And so they created a system in which every node on the Internet has the ability to store, to forward, to originate information. ... This decentralized system made it hard for the Russians to blow it up, but it also made it hard for the government or corporations to control the Internet. ..."

Free speech is not part of Darpa's motivations for inventing the predecessor of internet.

Note that Internet is driver from some evolved tech off Darpa's research.

Again, internet was not designed to advance any political goal, but to withstand nukes. And the internet now days is different from Internet when it's born. The difference is probably more prominent than between a monkey and a human being.

BTW not sure a statement from a media expert can be a proof of Internet's design and implementation goal. I never saw Viny Cerf's similar statement. He did mention Internet is made open in the recent gcp event.

You're right. Freespeech wasn't DARPA's motiviation. However it was the motivation of at least one of the engineers of ARPANET.

"My bias was always to build decentralization into the net. That way it would be hard for one group to gain control. I didn’t trust large central organizations. It was just in my nature to distrust them." -- Robert (Bob) Taylor

That's from the Issacson's book.

Sure, as long it's made clear that DARPA's motivation has no intention of freespeech, and DARPA is the main driver behind early internet research.

DARPA may be the main source of funding, but without the caliber of the team that implemented it; it probably would have either failed or faded into obscurity. A lot of people who live on the edge, tend to have a very strong independent spirit that tends to be at odds with figures of authority.

FIDOnet's temporary connections over POTS copper is arguably more resistant to censorship of a populace.

FIDOnet is arguably the precedent to the Internet, certainly Net culture derives more primally from the BBS scene than any IP transported culture.

Broadband connects an IP addy to a blameable citizen.

This produces a fear of sharing a connection ( and thus liability ) - this is concurrent with the demise of public WiFi.

Wynn Wagner III (Opus BBS) reports a support request from a doctor in Vietnam,[1] who states the (Vietnamese) internet is censored but the phones are not.

For similar but different reasons Tom Jennings reports FIDOnet support requests from .ru domains.[2]

The internets current distribution model seems unlikely to survive massive infrastructure attack, major connection bottlenecks are too narrow now.

Radio HAMS remain the likely communication network of first resort after any large scale devastation.

Facebook is not particuarly more than a very large BBS, (with the addition of Jeremy Bentham's panopticon[3]).

"Though actual observation may be discontinuous, fear of observation is continuous. And, this constant fear of observation produces self-censorship, which, according to Winston, is a “habit that becomes instinct”. Consequently, the panopticon’s monopoly on the body gradually becomes a monopoly on the mind." [4]

[1] https://youtu.be/_Cm6EFYktRQ?t=17m50s

[2] https://youtu.be/_Cm6EFYktRQ?t=17m24s

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

[4] https://mylittleplanet.edublogs.org/2015/07/09/utopia/

When you demand that your people bow and obey, and imprison people like A1 WW, this goes against promoting and nurturing innovation

Although the Japanese were not imprisoning people "like A1 WW", they were bowing and obeying when they ushered the era of consumer electronics a few decades ago. Now it's the turn of the Chinese.

Yes the Japanese are polite and formal and like China there's a huge pressure to conform. However imo there's one key difference: the Japanese obsession with kaizen- constant improvement and striving for perfection. It may not override outward conformity for appearances sake, but imo there are enough Japanese who are madly in love and obsessed with the idea of attempting to achieve acme, that they're willing to risk everything else for it ie. look at things differently, disobey, risk embarrassment from failure, etc... Conversely with the Chinese, guangxi tends to be only fully actualized and achieved with money and expensive physical things that money buys. When it's just about money and there's no love, everything suffers like creativity and quality. The end result is a cheap shallow copy. The authoritarian gov exacerbates this problem.

Everything comes and goes. It's just the nature of things. When it's your time to lead the pack, you will, regardless of the cultural environment. Most of us (in the West) don't know it yet, but we're already in the Chinese Age.

How long will their time last?

The funny thing about the influence of culture on innovation is that when this country (USA) was rewriting the rules and breaking down boundaries this way and that way, we were sending minorities to jail like "AI WW" and generally compelling them to behave and know their place.

Ai Weiwei is not a minority. In fact, the only reason he is not in jail continuously is because his family is very powerful ("noble") in China.

Empires are transient, and the more they try to control the people they rule, the more transient they become.

China has bet the farm on continual economic growth, and that worked for a while, but they're close to parity with the west now, so maintaining that rate of progress is going to become much more difficult. When the government fails to deliver continual rapid quality of life improvements, autocracy is going to become a major liability. They are going to be forced to either rapidly democratize, or become increasingly isolationist. I suspect that the government will push for the latter, though in the long run democratization is pretty much inevitable. The djinni is out of the bottle, and it's not going back.

This isn't to say that I see China collapsing per se, but there are some major speed bumps on the path to global domination.

I agree that China will eventually become a democratic country, but that will even make it stronger, not weaker. China is just getting started, so they're far from collapsing.

I'd caution against using broad strokes such as "The Chinese", which is a blanket identification that covers 1.2 or 1.3 billion people. Are you talking about the Chinese government that only cares about money and has 'no love' and promotes cheap shallow copies, or that every Chinese person is otherwise locked down to live a mediocre life while in China thanks to their government or their (implied to be) anti-disruption culture?

That said, kaizen as a Japanese industrial concept a la Toyota is continuous (small!) improvements, not broad ground-breaking change. With Japanese manufacturing, it was quite compatible with keeping with social norms on the surface and deeper, while optimizing to whatever goals. Kaizen as a broader life-philosophy term is known as gaishan in Chinese, where the word originated and is still used with some frequency, and is known as many other words in Buddhism, where the concept originated. Surely the inventors and practitioners of kaizen in South Asia and China haven't completely lost their love for improving things to the beckoning of material comforts and money?

As an outside observer, anecdotally, culturally at this juncture (plenty of room to change), from the lower class to upper-middle class families I was able to interact with in China last year, I didn't get a sense gǎi shàn (改善) was commonplace. The prevailing sentiment I experienced was chà bu duō (差不多), "near enough"...but that isn't peculiar to China, I run into that world-wide. I have a loosely-held suspicion on why this apparently seems to be a universal human trait, mainly to do with the second law of thermodynamics.

The gǎi shàn meme (and its consistent practice) seems to me more highly correlated with specific organizations that promulgate it: families, companies, clubs, etc., than a particular ethnicity/nation. YMMV, of course; I'm interested in hearing where people see this meme practiced.

You are absolutely right -- I was poking fun at the absurdity of saying that people as a culture or nation can be obsessed with self-improvement and perfection every waking moment.

I have heard the phrase used in the same empty way that many places must use it, along the lines of corporate pep-talks, such as "Listen up! We must improve and get better at what we do, etc. etc." This is obviously not the Toyota kaizen meme as said and did.

Heck, anyone who has ever been to Japan can recognize that there is still plenty of flimsy chabuduoism in Japanese culture as well (no country is really that special in this regard).

Just because a concept originated in one culture/civilization, it doesn't mean the culture that created the concept will continue to embrace it and be the leader. Buddhism is one example. While it was spread to Japan via China, it actually originated in India. I would make a similar argument with gaishan.

At the moment, chabuduo reigns over gaishan in China.

https://aeon.co/essays/what-chinese-corner-cutting-reveals-a...

> I'd caution against using broad strokes

Yes it can be dangerous using broad strokes. However are there no dominant features or beliefs in a particular culture regardless of its size? My opinions on Chinese culture both on the mainland and elsewhere were formed after a lifetime of exposure to it so maybe I'm biased.

> That said, kaizen as a Japanese industrial concept a la Toyota is continuous (small!) improvements, not broad ground-breaking change

I don't know as much about Japanese culture as I do about Chinese. What I mean is the Japanese obsession with mastery of an art or skill. I can't remember the word. I don't feel that it's shuhari either but I could be wrong.

This is stereotyping at it's finest.

China, even the Han-culture is not a monolith. There are huge cultural differences in China. One billion people are not 'one china' in anywhere else than communist propaganda.

There are differences in business culture, management hierarchy, language, food (what people in the west think as Chinese food is Cantonese food) and relationship with authority. People in eastern cities are culturally more individualistic and take more initiative than they do in other parts of China. That's something that foreign companies with subsidiaries in China have noticed.

No it isn't. It's like describing US society in the early 20th century and before as largely patriarchal - which was true. Yes there were outliers like the Women's suffrage movement, but they were just that - outliers and not most of society as a whole.

> constant improvement and striving for perfection.

This happens in every culture when pressures are pushed upon it. For decades after WWII, Japanese goods and products were considered inferior and "just good enough", and specialized in cheap things that didn't really need to be high quality. External pressures (exports) forced more precision and rigor on them.

Same thing for China. Right now it manufactures many things for a low price to a low quality. Nobody really cares if a chew toy is to spec. Once things start mattering, like exporting for Apple, the cultural pressures start changing quickly.

Also, striving for perfection occurs in every culture. Look back at old Chinese teachers or masters of particular arts or culture. Simply attributing the way things are in certain areas during certain times to cultures is simplistic and naive. Sure, if the market pressures were there, China could manufacture goods to high tolerances. But there is no large market currently for extremely high quality mass market consumer goods, except for computers and cell phones, which China has locked up nicely.

> Look back at old Chinese teachers or masters of particular arts or culture.

The Shaolin masters and their philosophy are pretty much gone. Today those who train just end up leaving the temples and either joining private security or the military for money. Culture and society's values aren't static. I'm describing what is reality today, and not in a past century.

> Simply attributing the way things are in certain areas during certain times to cultures is simplistic and naive.

This isn't isolated to just exports. There's fake food, specifically rice and noodles made from plastic. Dangerous blood transfusion services. There's fake and poor quality meds. These exist regardless of market pressures and demand. There's a nothing else matters but my family and I mentality and a social hierarchy model that's hard to understand unless you grew up in it; living there for a year or a few months isn't enough.

Fake rice does not exist. It's a persistent rumour aided and abetted by social media in Asia ("Rice from XYZ in China is made from plastic, forward this message to everyone you love!" is the text of one message I received).

You will not find anyone who actually ate any of this mythical rice. Just friends of friends of cousins.

http://www.snopes.com/plastic-rice-from-china/

Fake food and fake pharmaceuticals are not rumors. They are real and well documented. It's old news. Even pets and babies are affected. It's so bad that people who can afford it import baby formula.

Remember that innovations in tech do not require disrupting the government. The tech innovators have little interests in sabotaging the government. Innovations in tech is different from breaking government rules. Tech innovations are about disrupting the incumbents such as Microsoft, Amazon, Google, not about the government. Quite to the contrary, the Chinese government encourages tech innovations. Not only that they allow them to innovate, they allow them to break existing rules. As an instance, China is one of the few large countries which have legalized shared cars nation-wide(Didi, Uber). Not even the US.

you're missing the big picture. the status quo isn't limited to just a government. It can be a dominant company, tech standard, belief or way of thinking - the world is flat, there is only one true Church

> Quite to the contrary, the Chinese government encourages tech innovations.

No they do not. When you threaten your people with 'Conform or else...' or 'we will watch everything you do and listen to everything you say', it hurts both the flow and expression of new ideas. In China's defense, this is one thing Western governments are trying to copy.

> As an instance, China is one of the few large countries which have legalized shared cars nation-wide(Didi, Uber)

Car sharing originated in the West. It was started by bypassing existing laws without permission. In contrast, companies like Didi were sanctioned by the PRC likely after 'hey look how much money they're making in SV off this idea'

> you're missing the big picture. the status quo isn't limited to just a government. It can be a dominant company, tech standard, belief or way of thinking - the world is flat, there is only one true Church I am not sure who is missing the big picture. Only one true church? This world is diverse. It is not flat. It is round. Tech innovations are predominantly about tech. When do you see the silicon valley disrupt DC? The US political system basically stays the same since it was founded two hundred years ago.

> No they do not. When you threaten your people with 'Conform or else...' or 'we will watch everything you do and listen to everything you say', it hurts both the flow and expression of new ideas. In China's defense, this is one thing Western governments are trying to copy. Not if you are talking about tech innovations. The government does not give a crap if you talk about tech. They cannot care less. If you are trying to sabotage the government or the society, then it is different.

> Car sharing originated in the West. It was started by bypassing existing laws without permission. In contrast, companies like Didi were sanctioned by the PRC likely after 'hey look how much money they're making in SV off this idea' Any evidence that show Didi was sanctioned by PRC? If no evidence, it is all FUD.

>the world is flat, there is only one true Church I am not sure who is missing the big picture.

You misunderstood. All of those things were really dominant in the past in the West but people were brave enough to rebel and disagree and put it in writing to overcome it.

> The US political system basically stays the same since it was founded two hundred years ago.

Not true. In the beginning people didn't directly elect the president. Women weren't allow to vote. African Americans were once considered property. Political parties have come and gone. The list goes on.

> When do you see the silicon valley disrupt DC?

The end of SOPA was one example. I'm sure there will be more.

> Not if you are talking about tech innovations. The government does not give a crap if you talk about tech. They cannot care less. If you are trying to sabotage the government or the society, then it is different.

I strongly disagree. The problem is that almost everything can be seen as 'sabotaging society' including posting on forums.

Note that the government of the PRC has blocked and MITM'ed Github several times[1] which does not 'encourage tech innovations' in my view.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_GitHub#China

I think that it's very possible that unrestricted political speech isn't needed for dynamic business environments. I feel like a lot of Americans are waiting for the other shoe to drop, but only use vague innuendo or metaphor to explain why free speech is necessary for the next electronics innovation.

Can't we just say we like free speech? Because if we dont, and they can develop new commercial products without it, China will likely never get free speech. They'll just hear about it as something Western companies wanted that China succeeded without.

Dynamic business environments - no. World changing innovation - yes.

The Tianenmen square protests failed ultimately because the rest of China didn't know they were going on.

What happens now when with a flick of wechat the entire nation takes to the streets? All it will take is a leaders mistakes and a single spark.

It's not a question of whether China will have free speech and democracy but when.

> What happens now when with a flick of wechat the entire nation takes to the streets?

If you can think of it, then so can the Chinese party state:

https://qz.com/848885/china-is-censoring-peoples-chats-witho...

After n rounds of chaos and peace cycles and losting millions of lives in best case.

The Western world isn't doing a great job of advertising democracy at the moment. There's no natural progression towards free speech and democracy. It will happen if a majority of Chinese people are persuaded that it's a good idea. When they look at Trump and Brexit, I'm not so sure that they will be.

Having more control over their lives makes people intrinsically happier. As a result, even if everything else about their lives is the same, people in a democracy will be happier than people in an autocracy.

The Chinese people are riding a wave of growing affluence that is smoothing over the oppressive nature of the regime, but when growth stalls things are going to look very different.

Maybe. The future isn't that easy to predict, in my opinion. It's not as if every affluent society with low growth has become a democracy.

Good lord, this is a ridiculous comment, its truly shameful that its most upvoted.

Before you call out Chinese government on Great Firewall, What about Patent Trolls? Or the upcoming Physical wall south of the border? Painting an entire culture with a broad brush is stupid.

>> The real question is whether Chinese people can innovate while inside China.

To decisively refute your argument. The current leading company in Drones, is DJI The company was founded in 2006 by Frank Wang (Wāng Tāo, 汪滔). Who did not study Abroad.

Also they brought the most populous country in the world from extreme poverty to a near superpower status, and they managed to build home grown tech industry (Baidu, Didi) while intelligently keeping SV out. Is it ethical & moral that's a different question, is it innovative? You bet it is!

If the only innovation is some stupid IOT microwave made (with heart emoji) in Silicon Valley by hipsters supporting bernie then you are utterly deluded. The chinese government is filled with geniuses. Refusing to term the enormous progress achieved by the Chinese government (filled mostly with Chinese who studied in China) as innovation is antithetical.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21647981-chinese-firm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJI_(company)

The amount of money that Chinese people send abroad to buy overpriced assets (housing in Vancouver, as an example) tells me that they don't trust their rule of law. I don't know if innovation can thrive in such an environment, but let us see. Maybe the rule of law is no better in other countries today.

>> To decisively refute your argument. The current leading company in Drones, is DJI The company was founded in 2006 by Frank Wang (Wāng Tāo, 汪滔). Who did not study Abroad.

If you can make that claim about a majority of such companies then you can say it decisively refutes the argument. You have given one example, which could either be a trend or an exception. But here is a question - how easy do you think it is to confirm if it is a trend or an exception? What does that say about the flow of information? If you were an entrepreneur trying to use this information to your advantage, how much confidence will you have in your assessment?

>> Before you call out Chinese government on Great Firewall, What about Patent Trolls?

Why can't both be wrong?

Also they brought the most populous country in the world from extreme poverty to a near superpower status

Doesn't that kind of prove his point? The worlds most populous country isn't even a super power. It under-performs.

BTW, a less hyperbolic rendition might be "china went from a low-income country to a middle income country", as that's all that happened. It was nothing particularly remarkable, the same thing happened in many Asian countries.

> Also they brought the most populous country in the world from extreme poverty to a near superpower status

Before that, they first had to bring the country into extreme poverty (see "The Great Leap Forward"). This is like boasting about stopping to beat your wife.

I'm not ashamed of calling out an embarrassing but true problem with China, nor have I said that the US is perfect; in fact overall I feel that the US is probably on a steady decline if things don't change but that's another subject that most people on HN are more familiar with, so I'm not as inclined to comment on that.

I am not saying world changing innovation is impossible in China. I am saying that it's much harder to achieve compared to other places given the current conditions. Given China's size and access to capital, if the bad conditions that I describe were to improve there would be a 1000 more DJI level companies.

> If the only innovation is some stupid IOT microwave made (with heart emoji) in Silicon Valley

Silicon Valley has long existed before the 90's. Its tech culture is almost as old as the PRC itself if not older. This is the level of world changing innovation that I'm talking about that I feel currently eludes China: http://www.swinnovation.co.uk/2011/05/southwest-celebrates-5...

The only place China has a huge advantage in is with biotech, since Western culture as a whole has a lot reservations with its advancement in certain taboo areas.

I've come to conclude any culture that teaches strong forms of "respect your elders" will have a tough time building an innovation economy.

"I respect you and will disrupt you."

And then we can have an entire culture of respecting our elders so much that we emulate what disruptive badasses they are.

Everyone wins!

Japan?

How much of that is a result of being forced to change due to outside pressure? The fact that they did it well is secondary. I took a course at Yale where they taught the Western canon of literature as Satanic text, where Western culture was presented as justified rebellion. What is the Eastern equivalent?

First of all, it is a complex place. All big countries are.

Creating an original product/idea is different from innovating upon an existing one. So is Google not innovative as they did not invent internet search? ApplePay is less innovative because Alipay (handled USD660B in 2012) was started in 2004? Or Wechat is not innovative because whatsapp was there first?

I am not Chinese but we sell software in Asia. In a smaller box, they have to be more innovative because of all the crap rules they deal with like Great Firewall. Sure, many of the copies are of low quality and pitiful. However, similar to the hindi word - jugaad, everyday innovations are made using whatever is available. In many ways, they are more flexible than the Japanese who defer more to standard practices and hierarchy.

Eventually some made it better than the forerunners. Wechat started as a messaging app but has outstripped whatsapp in terms of applications. It is so tightly integrated in everyday activities, i.e people pay for their daily groceries, buy mcdonalds, it has voice messaging way before whatsapp introduced it, withdraw sent messages etc.

I feel that the culture is only antagonistic towards people who don't like the political status quo, not business. Didi (uber), DHL type of services are illegal at the beginning but gained legitimate status eventually because of its usefulness to the society. The propaganda is not helpful but I don't see it as any different from religious propaganda. If you can ignore it, you are fine. (Well, some people claimed religious people are less innovative, but that is another discussion)

I never said that the mainland has not produced anything innovative. The WeChat platform and DJI are good examples. (Sorry but Didi is not innovative.) My main point is that current conditions in China are not conducive to innovation. I strongly feel that there would be way more game changers like WeChat if the conditions in the mainland improved; even more so than the US and the EU combined. right now the conditions in China tend to just favor making larger and bigger copies of what already exist elsewhere and not anything really new

One key factor is the way people act in groups are limited to basically one mode: master-slave. We don't have the environment to nuture other modes, which is crucial for innovation. Also avoiding people equipped with that ability is one of the fundamental work to make sure no group can emerge to do anything effective.

People move to new places to make money, and in turn elevate their status. Innovation is a means through which people gain an advantage to make money, and therefore gain more status. As Silicon Valley shows, it takes investment to make money.

China is flush with money. So your arguments, railing against China, fall flat; unless you are willing to ignore the basic tenets of Silicon Valley.

(People also make great technological strides when it comes to defense of their livelihoods. That is why so much public spending towards defense has lead to so many innovative technologies. But that is a topic for another conversation.)

Well, given Shenzens whole shtick since its inception is just that I'm pretty optimistic about its "freedom".

Shanghai gets jealous of rivals and potential rivals and the higher your status, the more Beijing watches you. we'll see how this plays out

Of course there is always that but I think the necessity of a "at least one free trade zone even with free in quotation marks" will always outweight petty rivalry.

Who are the entrepreneurs in the valley, breaking the rules? btw, which company breaks the rules, except uber?

Who says breaking rules are considered innovation?

> When your culture is very antagonistic towards people who don't like the status quo and forces them to carefully think about what they say and write, the culture itself becomes a big obstacle to innovation.

Oh. You mean, like, hacker news?

Every downvote proves my point. Flag me to oblivion nazis!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com