Rice Theory: Why Eastern Cultures Are More Cooperative (2014)
npr.org
npr.org
“The polder model (Dutch: poldermodel) is a method of consensus decision-making, based on the Dutch version of consensus-based economic and social policymaking in the 1980s and 1990s. It gets its name from the Dutch word (polder) for tracts of land enclosed by dikes.
[…]
A third explanation refers to a unique aspect of the Netherlands, that it consists in large part of polders, land reclaimed from the sea, which requires constant pumping and maintenance of the dykes. Ever since the Middle Ages, when the process of land reclamation began, different societies living in the same polder have been forced to cooperate because without unanimous agreement on shared responsibility for maintenance of the dykes and pumping stations, the polders would have flooded and everyone would have suffered. Crucially, even when different cities in the same polder were at war, they still had to cooperate in this respect. This is thought to have taught the Dutch to set aside differences for a greater purpose.”
Unfortunately the Moon/Mars genre has been tainted by Heinlein’s “Moon is a Harsh Mistress” which recognized this question and solved it by making everyone a true libertarian who would rather nobly suffocate than steal air. When a criminal element shows up, it’s a racial stereotype shipped from Earth and the enlightened lunar dwellers simply kick him out and proceed with their zero-crime paradise of private property. Ridiculous book but understandably influential in its era.
There were other periods also of disunity in China, and consequently tons of people ended up dying as well. I'm sure it's similar with e.g. Japan where they had their own "three kingdoms" period.
I agree that “cooperation” isn’t the perfect word. What they really mean is that east asian countries are good at large-scale projects: rice farming back then, building high speed rail today.
But westerners overlook that east asian societies, specifically China, often tolerate openly self-interested behavior: pursuit of personal advantage, or advantage for one’s family, without regard to others. There’s a funny Ronny Chieng joke that east asian mothers want their kids to be doctors, but view “helping people” as an undesirable consequence of the job.
By contrast, we think of westerners, and Americans specifically, as highly individualistic, but many subgroups of Americans have a high level of self-organization. They’ll make and socially enforce rules without anyone telling them what to do.
For me, it was finding a lot of my American friend’s grandparents lived in nursing homes. That really shocked me, since just about everyone I knew in Taiwan lived with their grandparents.
The other one was learning quite a few of my American classmates had to pay their own college tuition. Not because their parents couldn’t afford it, but simply because they were seen as “adults” so were on their own.
Only as an adult, with a wife, kids (and perhaps a better perspective of the world?) did I realize how foolish I was growing up. And I see more and more how we, as a nation, constantly pay the price for that mindset.
Then you can quickly use this idea on people who put themselves in front of others. And the reality is it's not about being first, rather it's only about them, not what comes after them.
The West is individualistic, but all that means is that individuals choose their circle of concern. Without any further guidance, that means that innate instincts about who is important (family, close friends) dominate, rather than a forced narrative about the collective.
Look at prisoners, people dependent upon disability, people in authoritarian societies, you see all the same stuff. They're just more tactful about it because they're adults.
It is not just instinct that makes some people (including kids) dominant, it is also that they are being actively taught to act like that. The natural thing is for parents to teach kids own values, both in a planned and conscious way and in the "by the way" style.
yeah, lots of "cooperation" in europe all right. left and right hate each other just as much as they do anywhere else
“Americans are so individualistic, they don’t care about climate change.”
For how many Americans don’t care about their credit score, or bank account, or student debt, or local elections, or countless other things directly immediately affecting their lives, that’s not the case. It’s more that humans A) are bad at caring about the future and B) don’t trust scientists for any number of reasons they wouldn’t trust any other human meaning C) the only way to change this is to convince them, not lecture them, just like any other group that wants power, because no group is intrinsically special regarding human communication.
I'm thinking that the real culprit of collaborative culture is the historic bidirectional relations between the high ruler of the land and his vassals, and same down the chain. If the rule was absolute and one directional (down) throughout most of the land history, then there is not much chance that collaborative culture may develop at the lower levels. And if there was a bidirectional relations, even very limited, if rulers weren't almighty but sometimes had their own responsibilities towards subjects, then the collaborative culture had a higher chance to evolve.
Are you suggesting this was the case in parts pre-modern Europe?
As an example more familiar to me - Kievan Rus and its region (modern day Ukraine, Russia). Duchies in the region had been closely following western Europe countries, right up until Golden Horde invasion and continued occupation. After that few centuries of despotia, then Russian Empire, then USSR effectively destroyed almost all collaborative culture. But on the other hand western Ukraine managed to avoid most of that and preserved its culture over the centuries. And so in the 21st century that preserved core managed to jump-start democratic revolution in the country, while protests in Russia mostly fizzled out, with some exceptions of course.
I've also driven in a bunch of different places, including the left-hand drive portion of the United States. So I've seen the wide spectrum of driving. I could just as easily remark that in some parts of Asia, road traffic has a general degree of lawlessness to it. Laws aren't enforced or are absent in the first place. Yet somehow it appears that in any populated area hundreds of thousands of people are able to participate in road traffic each day and somehow be productive members of society and economy. All of this happens in the absence of legal coercion. I'm not going to leap to "it's a libertarian utopia" but if people can co-exist in a society in a productive way without legal coercion and have it not just immediately become violent I think that is admirable.
Or worker rights for example. Maybe one can hope to negotiate a better salary for himself if everyone is secretive and individualistic all the time (the temporary embarrassed millionaire trope), so no one pushes for unionization and worker rights and benefits together. Stuff like that.
I don't know where you place 2020's CNN on the left/right scale but Brahmin is not named in this news : https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/01/tech/cisco-lawsuit-caste-...
Big progress in just 2-3 decades, so never say never :)
(I'm not sure if this is what you were insinuating, but it would make sense)
Britain couldn’t have, and didn’t, colonize India the way the Mughals had: through a direct land war. Instead, the British East India company entered into deals with various port cities one by one to establish toe holds. Then in the Battle of Plassey, they overthrew the Nawab with just 750 British soldiers and 2,000 Indian mercenaries against a Mughal army of 50,000. The British persuaded the Mughal generals to defect, and the Nawab, fearing further defections, capitulated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey
But the subsequent consolidation of power in campaigns against the Maratha has similar features. The east india company won by exploiting division and conflict among the Maratha: https://www.worldhistory.org/Anglo-Maratha_Wars. What’s crazy is that during these wars, the East India Company armies were mostly Indians, with 15% or so being European soldiers.
nah, they used guns and cannons.... force. same as any conqueror ever.
Robert Clive overthrew the Nawab of Bengal with 800 europeans and a dozen artillery pieces: https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/battle-plassey. He also had 2,000 Indian soldiers (Britain conquered India with Indians doing the work). The Nawab had an army of 50,000 along with 50 artillery pieces.
> Robert Clive overthrew the Nawab of Bengal with... I believe the indian rulers at the time could match the british technologically. even at Plassey the british had superior tech
On the other side of the equation, the British were vastly outnumbered. Before 1800, the east india company had less than 20,000 Europeans in its army. On the other side, the Indians had hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Iron canons versus bronze canons weren’t the reason the British were able to overcome the Indian armies. It was that the EIC was able to get thousands of Indians to fight on their side, and exploited the divisions between the various Indian states.
the "Indians" were all fighting each other, so Im not sure you can count their numbers together like that. India proper might have been on paper a force to be reckoned with, but the reality of it was actually dozens of smaller, poorer countries all vying for power AGAINST each other, not in cooperation. that isnt a formidable enemy, Im sorry
For example, the Spanish colonial period in the Philippines was a relative cakewalk where there was little to no cooperation (most of the island chain), but to this day the Muslims in the south still retain an autonomous region despite centuries of foreign occupation and interference by a host of nations, due in large part to their higher degree of cooperation.
I have my own theory that companies like Samsung and TSMC build plants in western nations primarily to hybridize this culture and avoid falling into certain traps. If Samsung can figure out how to get their American flash and LSI lines to yield the same as the Korean lines, they've probably achieved a more robust manufacturing process.
You need some number of people with ego to tell you what they really think, be resistant to things they see as bad, etc, etc. Otherwise you will waste untold sums in the time it takes to realize your mistakes they would have told you about a week after you rolled them out.
Cooperation has to serve the ego, individual and/or collective, or there will be no cooperation.
Think of it this way: some almost Fascists back in the day knew how that thing would end and/or play out and decided against cooperation.
Enough actual Fascists survived anyway and the narrative and their actions still serve the same conviction. Some are rich and influential and fascist as fuck while others live in delusions.
Those of my friends who worked for Korean companies generally agree that decision makers are not interested in the local culture beyond whether people belonging to it will accept certain rules.
It so happens that my country has a culture of overwork, so we're compatible enough.
Queueing discipline is non-existent; people will take what they want without waiting for others who arrived first. Business standards for fair dealing are just as bad if not worse than many western societies. Family/personal connections are favored and nepotism is rampant. Driving behavior is extremely selfish and causes a lot of accidents (running red lights, default behavior at uncontrolled intersections, etc). Their problems with concentration of money and power are just as bad if not worse than the west with chaebols essentially above the law and abusing their workers to the extent that people have no time for families - so What makes Asian societies more “cooperative?” Is it just their attitude that they think they are more cooperative?
But they are not good at self-organized activities. Without an authority they are more chaotic.
Statistic features of populations are less understood not only because of lack of scientific method but also it's a taboo. However, there are some consensus among the elites within the populations but can not speak aloud.
How does this differ from the Middle East? Because our friends in the Middle East have truly 'died off' in waves; many of the peoples who once inhabited those lands have long since been replaced."
That is overstated. "Arab" in a lot of cases is more a cultural moniker than a genetic one. For instance the Palestinians are some of the genetically closest modern populations to the ancient Canaanite remains we've studied.
society isnt one big team that cooperates, its a bunch of slaves trapped in place by the lord/king/raj so he can tax them. he does it by claiming to govern and protect the land, and he kills people that dont agree with any part of it.
its telling that most armies throughout history were full of people who had to be FORCED to join. people arent "cooperating" the way you think they are
A big MAYBE behind of lot of words and reasoning. IME that usually leads to good sales for pop non-fiction, but not a meaningful cause&effect relationship, necessarily.