🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <50657@sun.uucp> livesey@sun.uucp (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1148@maccs.UUCP>, cs4l3az@maccs.UUCP (....Jose) writes:
>> 	If this is a science conference, then why do we keep bringing
>> up silly, irrelevant, meaningless nationalist gibberish?
>
>	Because it's none of these things, and because creativity is
>probably an acceptable subject for sci.misc
>
>	Messrs Huntbach and Govett variously allege that the Japanese 
>are not a creative bunch and are 'freeloading' on 'US and European' science. 

Science is meant for 'freeloading' so don't count me in as a Japan-basher
on this. If they can come up with the products based on our ideas that's
fine and it's our fault that we couldn't do it first.

The argument is over whether various forms of education system affect 
nations. If they do then clearly when discussing these education systems
we ought to be able to use statements of the form 'Nation A is more <some
quality> than Nation B' without being accused of nationalism.

What we have not covered is cause and effect - e.g. is there something in
Japanese society which makes a rigid education system more acceptable there
than elsewhere, rather than what effects does the rigid education system
have on Japanese society.

An education system which is divisive is probably more acceptable in a
country with high social cohesion than in one which is already socially
divided. In the USA that division is between blacks and whites.
In Britain there are still very strong class divisions so any education
system or system for measuring intelligence which starts on the assumption
that everyone is equally motivated won't work unless one doesn't care about
race/class bias.

Matthew Huntbach