Hacker News Reader

Comment by hmwhy | Hacker News Reader

Highlights and comments:

> These results are not comprehensive, however. Nor are they representative. EF’s index is based on the results of a free online test taken by 2.3m volunteers in 100 countries. Only people with an internet connection and time and willingness to take a test are included in the sample...

I almost stopped reading at this point.

> Such biases aside, the EF’s index produces results that are interesting...

I was taught that in scientific research one should never claim that her/his own research is interesting, not least because it's something that's up to the audience to decide.

> ... interesting, if not entirely scientific.

At least they are honest about it not being entirely scientific.

> This correlates with another factor: EF repeatedly finds that English skills are highly correlated with connections and openness to the rest of the world.

Openness...? By what measure?

Edit: typo.

View on HN

I don't mean to go all cui bono, but the company behind the study[] has a remarkably consistent knack for getting the message out in mainstream publications (HBR, Bloomberg, Economist) that the world's economies must learn English or fall behind. That may or may not be true, but the company's business is "language training" in 116 countries, seemingly with a focus on teaching English.

[]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF_Education_First

I would take “openness”, as typed in an Economist article, to mean something like “[a country/government that] does not snuff out opinions contrary to that of the government, sometimes by disappearing, sending to concentration camps, and/or murdering contrarians”. Or something like that.

Also, I wish people would stop doing such mental gymnastics just to complain - your comment is effectively attempting to amplify the shortcomings of the study that are pointed out in the article you are quoting by then quoting them and adding slightly snarky commentary. Why? The author does a fine job framing what the study actually accomplishes, in their opinion, and then assessing its utility.

On that same note, The Economist article is a commentary on the study and not written by the authors of the actual study. So when The Economist says the results are “interesting” that is not Education First (the company behind the study) claiming their own results are interesting... it is an audience member doing so. Please be accurate if you are going to nitpick so aggressively.

The fact is the article does provide interesting commentary on the outcome of a vast and interesting survey while clearly acknowledging the interesting issues with the data.

> On that same note, The Economist article is a commentary on the study and not written by the authors of the actual study.

You are right, I completely missed that point when I commented and that is now an embarrassing mistake that I can only learn from and remind me to be more accurate in the future.

> Also, I wish people would stop doing such mental gymnastics just to complain - your comment is effectively attempting to amplify the shortcomings of the study that are pointed out in the article you are quoting by then quoting them and adding slightly snarky commentary.

I wasn't "attempting" to amplify those shortcomings, I was indeed amplifying those shortcomings.

Once you have acknowledged that there isn't sufficient evidence to make any solid conclusions then the only logical next step is to get more evidence to support or refute your hypothesis instead of coming up with "interesting" commentary.

It's not like the article is asking for help to get evidence to substantiate the study, or tries to give the reader any valuable, fact-based insights. So the fact that the author acknowledges that the study is "not entirely scientific" in multiple paragraphs, then proceed to use a misleading title and come up with conjectures to make the study seem more interesting/increase its value is a huge red flag to me.

Edit: typo.

Maybe they are saying it is much easier to enter the country? I will give an example with my own country -> South Africa. We have more white people than all other Africa countries combined. We have more Chinese people than all other African countries combined. We have more Indians than all other African countries combined. I won't even be surprised if we have more Indians than US percentage-wise. That sounds like a country that is more open to the rest of the world according to me.

However, there are nationalists who aren't welcoming if you are from a poor African country. They only welcome other races expect their own race -> African. It is mostly poor African people who think other Africans are coming to take their jobs. Good thing is that they don't have government support. Unlike in the US where it is the head of state telling people not to come to their country.

I suspect we even make our border to be porous just to allow other people to freely enter the country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com