Hacker News Reader

Comment by yzmtf2008 | Hacker News Reader

yzmtf2008

As a Chinese reader, every sentence in this article rings true, even more so in the historic perspectives.

Especially in the PRC, you're in general incentivized to be an "excellent cog in the machine", and they teach this value to you in schools. "Being unique" in your first 18 years of life is considered a bad thing, and respect for hierarchy is enforced every day.

I wouldn't write everyone in China off to the type presented in the article -- most people in China know that this is not an efficient way of approaching things. However, their hands are tied in a society that enforces hierarchy in every possible way.

View on HN

Thank you. Especially since you write that "every sentence in the article rings true" for you, can you expand on this from the article:

>engineers that you know to be otherwise reasonably competent simply choosing not to bring up glaring and obvious problems.

What does it refer to? How would/should someone guard against it? Normally we are usually used to being able to receive a bit of push-back (maybe polite) if we propose something with a glaring and obvious problem. Does this mean engineers would build something that doesn't work at all? (For some reason that's completely obvious to them.) In point of fact, I'm not sure what the article refers to, as it doesn't give an example. Could you give an example of what you think they mean, and how someone might protect against this effect? Thanks.

I think "glaring and obvious" is a little hyperbole, in the sense that most of the decisions an engineer can make aren't really that influential, and more often than not if the odds are right, nothing will break.

An example would be: I know this different schedule can probably save the company $xxx money, but since it's my boss who proposed it I'll just let it pass.

It really takes a village. The culture of standing up against higer-ups is sometimes way out of the league for a single person to achieve.

Thank you for the example. I also asked how someone can protect against this effect, but you did not answer that portion of my question. By "someone" I meant, in this case the boss - how can bosses counter this effect?

For instance, to continue with your example, suppose the boss certainly would like to save $xxx with a different schedule they hadn't considered, but isn't even aware that the engineer is competent enough to propose it and knows how to do so: so in this case what could the boss have said or done differently that would have caused the engineer to propose it?

I assume ending each meeting with "We must now talk about anything that would improve the proposal just made; even if it makes me look like an idiot. Zhang Wei, do you know of any improvements?" and then going around pointing to each person and making them tell you whether they do, does not sound like it would "work". In this case Zhang Wei would say "no", as would the rest of the engineers... so how can the manager learn that an alternative schedule which Zhang Wei can propose could save them $xxx? (And maybe even complete production sooner, etc.) Any concrete suggestions here?

Maybe anonymity would help? The problem there is that people won't have as much incentive to propose improvements, as they won't be recognized if their proposals end up being good.

It just has to be ingrained in the company culture I guess. You'd really need to emphasize, whenever possible, that improvements and suggestions and corrections are welcome. You're fighting against upbringing.

The only century routinely teach her citizen about how to do revolution, and is called to respect hierarchy...

I must be living in a China of a parallel universe.

But one thing I agree, do do appear use statement without backup, that certainly one common traits of Chinese education: teach facts not reasoning...

Wow, we really must be living in parallel universes. Are you sure “revolution” is encouraged in China? In fact, are you sure revolution is encouraged in any country?

Sure, but you learn that in a country you described as teaching to respect hierarchy, did you not find the contradictory?

Almost any books in China described the country as founded by overthrowing the rich and powerful oppressed the people.

Certainly the government is the rich and powerful and is no longer what it should be as described in the text book.

But is it appropriate to fabricate statements to patron the western stereotype?!

Do you know what Deliang Hou's line: isn't the truth already powerful, why use lies to support our causes?!

> The only century routinely teach her citizen about how to do revolution, and is called to respect hierarchy

> Sure, but you learn that in a country you described as teaching to respect hierarchy, did you not find the contradictory?

I'm not sure where the contradictory is, because I certainly don't feel that overthrowing your superiors is an acceptable thing during my education, and this discussion is getting more political than I'm comfortable with on HN.

It doesn't take too much effort to acknowledge that China, or more so the entire eastern Asia's culture, favors respecting hierarchy, and I'm not sure why we're even debating this. I'm also not sure what about my statement is fabricated. You literally cannot fabricate an opinion.

I'll say this though: things are moving in the right direction, and I'm seeing the culture moving away from respecting hierarchy in all conditions. But you really can't fix the problem without acknowledging it.

1. I am not talking about politics, please do not label or imply whatn I stated. Chinese textbook devote significant part on history from 1840 to recent years. Those are a history of revolutions.

2. Chinese are not particularly taught to respect hierarchy or particularly really respect hierarchy. Most nations respect their own hierarchy. There is no special in China, and there is no special in Chinese education.

3. I am not debating if China respecting hierarchy, I am pointing out that your baseless claim of China being educating or particularly educating her citizens to respect hierarchy, that's not true and I showed the fact.

4. Respecting hierarchy is not a problem itself. Organized system, be it human or machine, needs hierarchy to function. Your premise of moving away from hierarchy is GOOD, itself is another unbased claim, AGAIN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com