If you ever want to extend the analogy to include the perspective of the water here's one to read:
"Over the last few years I've regularly been cornered by nervous publishers or broadcasters or journalists or film makers and asked about how I think computers will affect their various industries. For a long time most of them were desperately hoping for an answer that translated roughly into 'not very much'. ('People like the smell of books, they like popcorn, they like to see programmes at exactly the same moment as their neighbours, they like at least to have lots of articles that they've no interest in reading', etc.) But it's a hard question to answer because it's based on a faulty model. It's like trying to explain to the Amazon River, the Mississippi, the Congo and the Nile how the coming of the Atlantic Ocean will affect them. The first thing to understand is that river rules will no longer apply."
Since you're currently holding a magazine, let's think about what might happen when magazine publishing is no longer a river in its own right..
I've had that happen before. I wrote a somewhat long piano piece that I was unusually impressed with myself for.
I later learned (luckily before I published it anywhere) that it was in fact a melody from a (somewhat well-known) friend's song I had heard some years before, perhaps only 2-3 times, but somehow it remained intact in my head.
I suspect all these derive from a Buddhist parable, in which a novice fish asks a master fish to define the "sea" that the master keeps mentioning. The original point was different: the master's description is necessarily mystical, but the sea is real.
It does have Buddhist roots. If fact the Youtube videos of DFW's - This is water - are very close to what Buddhism advocates (for lack of a better word) - consciously chosen response to every moment/situation. (DFW mentions "Default Setting" of unconscious conditioned response which I find highly relevant for geeks!)
You can find hours of lectures by Alan Watts about this sort of thing. I find his work to be a very approachable explanation of Buddhism, Zen, Hinduism and Taoism.
Thank you for posting DFW's commencement speech. After reading it, I realized that I think under my default setting the majority of the time. It's something I am now consciously going to work on changing.
Personally, I didn't find Derek's post to be anything new. It was basically just an eloquent rephrasing of "some things we think are fundamental values are just cultural". I knew that already.
The phrase "fish don't have a word for water" (and many permutations thereof) existed before both essays. So it's quite possible that both DFW's speech and Derek's essay have nothing to do with each other.
If Derek were to rephrase the question as, "How many of you would like to work in government some day?", I would bet almost all 50 hands would go up. The reason for it is that in Singapore, many regard a government job as one with the highest job security, best pay and benefits.
Our cabinet ministers are paid millions a year[1]. Obama's allowance is about what a fairly low official would be paid.
I'm curious if people have done the math on Govt jobs ... especially with respect to pensions? Whenever I've looked into it, I've felt some disbelief. Many govt employees in the US and Canada have defined benefit pension plans ... I sometimes think I'll never be able to save half that much because of my low-risk savings/investment style.
I've never considered such jobs personally because I don't feel it is what I want out of life. As I get older, I do wonder whether I am just being a fish missing the larger world of opportunities :)
Wait - Are you talking about the US? If so, how is having a government job an embarrassment? Gosh, it must be so shameful to work for the White House, the FBI, the Treasury, Homeland Security, the Military, the CIA, the Senate, the Justice Department, the Supreme Court...What sap would ever want to be president? /sarcasm
Even the USPS has more impact than the vast majority of SV startups...combined. Just sayin'.
What sap would want to be the guy at the DMV counter that has to deal with a 20 year old computer system and loads of irate customers who want their tabs renewed right this minute? What sap wants to be the guy at the post-office counter at 11:30 pm on April 14th? Do you really think that TSA screener wants to feel you up/look at naked pictures of you when you go through the airport queue?
There are plenty of crappy jobs in government, just like in the private sector. Romanticizing it doesn't do anyone good.
I agree wholeheartedly - there are plenty of jobs that suck in any industry and, likewise, there are plenty of jobs to be proud of. The blanket statement that "in this country, government jobs are embarrassing" is extremely unfair and, well, ignorant.
I was speaking as a former government worker who loved his job. I'm not trying to put down government workers, it's just a fact that unless you are in something "flashy" like the FBI or CIA most people in the USA think you are not very ambitious for settling into a civil service career. You don't often hear people dreaming about being postal workers.
I do work for the US government. Government jobs, even the good ones, combine all the worst parts of working for a large multi-national with all the worst parts of working in academia. You have reams of bureaucracy and even simple things can take months or years to accomplish, while at the same time advancement happens based almost entirely on seniority and politics. For GS positions, the pay is good and the job security is second to none, but the entire system is almost constructed to sap away your motivation.
I work for the state of Massachusetts. It's embarrassing. It's not degrading. I see it around me, the glazed looks, the countdown timers to retirement, the pathetic work for exorbitant pay... It's sickening. It saps the life out of you. It makes you jealous of their lavish wages, but destroys your soul all the same to see them, the living dead, diminished to joyless 8 hour days, the struggle to complete remedial tasks. I hesitate to imagine they live outside those hours as I have seen so little joy. Am I respected? Sure, most everyone is amazed at what I do (just being honest), but it's sad as hell.
How much status your job has depends on what circles you travel in. I remember meeting a guy in SF who worked for the IRS... he said it in a really embarrassed way. I used to have the same embarrassed tone when telling people at cool startup parties that I worked at McKinsey.
In other parts of the country/world, the IRS guy or the McKinsey guy is the highest status person in the room.
There was once a wise and venerated fish who preached about water. Water, he would say, surrounds and supports us. We are all in and of the water, and where there is nothing else there is water.
Fish came from all over the ocean to hear him teach. 'I have nothing to teach,' he said, 'only enjoy the water,' but they came anyway, and some of them began to understand the water, and some of them came to understand it fully, and were called awakened.
One day a fish came and said 'Teach me of the water'. The teacher said 'I have nothing to teach. The water is all around us, above and below, and it fills the spaces where nothing else is.'
The fish frowned thoughtfully. 'You mean this stuff?' he asked, and flicked a fin so that a wave of water lightly struck the teacher's face.
'Yes,' said the teacher, bowing his head and smiling in acknowledgement 'that is the water; I see you have attainment.'
'Oh,' said the fish, surprised, 'that's it?'
'That's it.'
'Oh, okay,' said the fish, 'nice weather we're having, eh?'"
Maybe you're joking, maybe not. It's impossible for anyone to know on the Internet.
Be that as it may, if you're really contemplating suicide, please talk to someone about your feelings -- or lack thereof -- before you do anything else. Even if it's just a stranger at a hotline.
For example
"Gutei raised his finger whenever he was asked a question about Zen. A boy attendant began to imitate him in this way. When anyone asked the boy what his master had preached about, the boy would raise his finger. Gutei heard about the boy's mischief. He seized him and cut off his finger. The boy cried and ran away. "
What is the purpose of this type of story? Is it supposed to be funny, shocking, insightful, or just a time killer? I find it to be mostly useless. I read a few of them and they seemed like boring short stories.
I did the opposite swim and have had the exact same experience. I miss some of my friends but found my family to be much more reliable.
I try to avoid having preference of one pond over another. I now understand how each system is different and see the advantages and flaws in both.
One thing I try to avoid is "immigrant guilt". I don't know if there is a word for it but when you move to another country some try to over compensate for fear of losing their identity, ie. being extra British, or extra American (this is the one people tend to meet it seems), or extra French. These people tend to celebrate the national holidays even if they never did before, wear patriotic or national shirts, or go extra thick on the language.
My experience is the same as both of you except I don't really count where I was born as my identity. It informs and effects my actions but I try to choose where I live based on where I can have the best quality of life.
Is there any evidence fish don't "know" they are in water?
I've seen plenty of fish from flying fish, to carp, to sharks jump completely out of water time after time after time.
The archer fish can accurately shoot (spit at) flies that are out of water and down them (and eat them) so something within the fish can correct for refraction.
Salmon can be seen jumping out of water, and against a strong current, they can be seen swimming very hard, and making little headway or even giving up ground.
It's not clear to me that fish don't understand they are within water.
Assuming they can "know" anything in a sense recognizable to human consciousness, I would imagine they can instinctively understand the properties of they medium they live in without being "aware" of it, or thinking about it much. How often do you think about air?
But I'm just speculating, as well. It makes a good illustration for the real point, in any case. ;)
When one is driving a car, one doesn't say to oneself "Wow, I am driving a car." That doesn't mean one can't have that knowledge, it just doesn't come up -- unless something breaks, and one can't drive the car and is trying to figure out why and communicate it.
Knowledge-how is implicit in all of the universe. Knowledge-about might be only possible with language. All speculation...
I agree with this. I know I am in air. And I know my culture is different from other cultures. I may not completely grasp the significance but I don't need to because I'm not switching cultures any time soon. If I were to decide to emigrate to Singapore, then I'd go ahead and learn about their culture. What value is it to me to know that people in Singapore don't see entrepeneurism the same way that I do? Maybe of my local peers don't see it the same way I do either. We are all different. Regardless of culture.
I think that the fish-water analogy is pretty weak, and the entire culture ignorance concept is irrelevant for most individuals.
This reply may seem clever and proper from the point of view of someone living in a Reddit culture, but it is rude and pointless in a Hacker News culture.
We do not place high stock in pointless pedantry or mundane memes. We focus on intelligent, meaningful discussion that centers around important points in submissions. Picking a tangential (and historical) analogy to attack does not further the discussion in any way. This entire thread is a massive waste of space.
Largely, I'm not going to disagree with you. I agree that we should look for truths and value in whatever is posted, and foster useful and constructive discussion.
However, you appear to have done that of which you accuse. There is merit in the comment you criticize, even though it is not fully or clearly expressed. Try to draw an intelligent and meaningful discussion from it ...
The point, perhaps, is that a bad analogy at the start of a piece is an example of bad writing. Good hackers need to write well, and the lesson to learn here is that good writing requires moving beyond the mundane cliche and finding analogies that are relevant, accurate, and true.
Yes, this thread got out of hand, and I probably should take much of the blame for that. The down-votes are telling me that people think it doesn't belong. I'll take my lumps. But to dismiss a comment like this as being content-free is to share the blame for not finding value.
The real mistake is the Reddit-like expression of the point, rather than attempting to highlight something positive. With that I agree.
Am I the only person that thought jerrya's original comment was quite well thought out and reasonable, and was only later put off the discussion by other people attacking him?
If criticisms such as jerrya's are the plague of Reddit, then surely "this is a bad HN comment" is the plague of HN. And yes, I realize I risk being self-referential here, but I really think this needs proper calling out.
I thought jerrya's original comment was reasonable until I got to, "citation-needed.jpg." I was actually "lucky" that he included that bit, making me question the relevance of his entire post.
It is not unintelligent or spammy comments that endanger the discourse at Hacker News. It is comments that seem to be saying something worthwhile that get upvoted and take up valuable real estate on the comment threads while being of almost no value that threaten to bring Hacker News too close to the multitude of other sites out there.
It used to be that the HN comment threads were multiple times better than the submissions themselves. I would have a very hard time arguing that today.
He's saying that you're taking the article's metaphor too literally. The author is using the fish line as imagery to help illustrate his point; it is not actually a "premise" like you suggest, and so its scientific truth is just not relevant.
Look, science fiction requires a willing suspension of disbelief. I get that.
I get too that the article starts with a metaphor.
The metaphor seems bogus to me. And the post was apparently not science fiction. So I said, the metaphor seems bogus to me. Your response seems to be, "it's imagery." Okay, my position is that this premise/metaphor/imagery is probably bogus and as such, hurts the article.
I can't suspend my disbelief long enough to get to the rest of the article. F=>X is T for all X. Cast article form of tautology.
I appreciate your response to me, as opposed to the downvotes my response received with no explanation.
Yes, thank you. I can see by the points I lose just how much everyone wants to tell me it's an analogy/metaphor/imagery not actual logic.
I read stuff all day long where people say, "your analogy is wrong". That actually is part of an argument.
I assume Derek would like to be a better writer -- we all would. I assume Derek would like his articles to carry weight -- we all would.
His analogy/metaphor/imagery is probably bogus and stopped me in my tracks.
I understand how stating my position that I could not get further than that brings down the hammer at HN.
Ironically, my stating my own opinion that I cannot buy into his analogy/metaphor/imagery and that his metaphor is wrong AND the consequent hammer of downvotes as HN readers hate on me actually makes Derek's point.
Stop being melodramatic. Since I've actually studied how natural language statements map to logical truth functions, I'm honestly mystified as to why you think an analogy is semantically equivalent to a material conditional.
You're not the only one who has studied such things. I, too, have studied how natural languages map (or don't map) to the logical constructs in math, and I've also studied (informally) rhetoric and similar topics.
A bad analogy spoils the narrative and undermines the point. It seemed perfectly valid for jerrya to raise the question, and raised in my mind the ancient Chinese tale of Zhuangzi and Huizi strolling on Bridge Hao.
Zhuangzi: "Look how happy the fish are just
swimming around in the river."
Huizi: "How do you know they are happy?
You are not a fish."
Zhuangzi: "And you are not me. How do you
know I don't know the fish are
happy?"
Huizi: "Of course I'm not you, and I
don't know what you think; But
I do know that you're not a fish,
and so you couldn't possibly know
the fish are happy."
Zhuangzi: "Look, when you asked me how I knew
the fish were happy, you already
knew that I knew the fish were happy.
I knew it from my feelings standing
on this bridge."
We don't know if the fish know about water or not, and claiming such ignorance really does undermine the point. The points about not noticing culture because you are immersed in it and have no basis for comparison are true, but a poor clichéd analogy is a bad way to start.
I still don't see one bit of explanation as to how an analogy is equivalent to a material conditional.
I agree that Derek's analogy was poorly chosen for his audience. Clearly, he should have anticipated that people would be pedantic enough to bikeshed over whether or not fish actually realize they are in water.
I can't speak for your original interlocutor, but for me, it went like this:
Fish don't know about water ...
Hang on. Firstly, you don't know that. Secondly, it's plausible that some do. OK, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Is this a premise? An analogy? Either way it's either wrong or pretty weak - why should I bother reading the rest? I mean, if it's all this bad, then it'll be a waste of time ...
Perhaps someone else's thought processes go like this:
If this is an analogy it's really poor, so I guess it must be a premise. But it's wrong, so now I really don't know what's going on here ...
It reads like a starting point. It reads like a fact that will be built on. To some, that's bad, and possibly jerrya was just trying to point that out. From that point of view it is, perhaps, you who is bikeshedding. Perhaps you should take jerrya's comment slightly less literally, and more as you would have us read the original article.
But that's just how it seems to me. Likely I'm wrong too. But one thing's now for sure, I've expressed my views, and I'm unlikely to spend more time on this question.
So you can't be bothered to read more than five words before formulating an opinion, yet you write several paragraphs expressing that opinion. And then you downvote me for asking how an analogy equates to a material conditional?
Research shows that opinions are formed very, very quickly.
Further, I did read the article, even though my initial reactions were so negative. I did that because I know that sometimes people don't write well, but their ideas might still be worth considering.
My comments were born of trying to help people understand how apparently small issues in their writing can have apparently disproportionate effects on their audiences.
So, let's see. You said:
So you can't be bothered to read more than five words
That was wrong.
... before formulating an opinion,
Your outrage contradicts findings in research.
... yet you write several paragraphs expressing
that opinion.
Yes. Clear expression of ideas matters, and sometimes the "instant quip" is a bad way to get an idea across.
And then you downvote me
No, I didn't.
... for asking how an analogy equates to a material
conditional?
But that wasn't the point. I tried to explain how there were multiple ways to look at that opening "idea," and that none of them actually worked.
So clearly I've failed in getting my point across. As Samuel Johnson said (although other sources attribute it to James Boswell):
Sir, I have found you an argument;
but I am not obliged to find you an
understanding.
I conceded your point before you wasted your time arguing it. Past that point, you've really nothing interesting to say.
Sadly, I am more than familiar with the general quality of people's reading comprehension. Perhaps it is too much to expect that someone reads something and understands it before formulating an opinion about it.
By the way, statements like this
Your outrage contradicts findings in research.
are curious as well. My "outrage" (disappointment, really) is a sentiment, not a proposition. Which raises an interesting question--you criticize a metaphor, essentially a parable, by attacking its literal and logical truth, while spouting logical nonsense of your own. I criticize your logic, and you fall back to...what, exactly?
Incidentally, there's no proof either way whether you downvoted me or not, but I will take you at your word and disregard the circumstantial evidence otherwise.
I conceded your point before you wasted
your time arguing it. Past that point,
you've really nothing interesting to say.
My apologies for wasting your time. It wasn't clear to me that you understood the points I was trying to make. It now does seem clear to me that you don't, but since I've already said it as clearly as I can, seems little point in adding to it.
You may choose not to bother reading further.
>> Your outrage contradicts findings in research.
> My "outrage" (disappointment, really) is a
> sentiment, not a proposition.
Sorry, but it seemed to me to be more than simply disappointment. And you may be disappointed, but research says that people form opinions very quickly. To try to take a stance that this should not be the case is a little odd. So I guess I don't understand your point.
> ... spouting logical nonsense of your own.
It's not clear to me what of my writings you think are logical nonsense. It's also not clear what you refer to when you say: "I criticize your logic ..." I've re-read your comments several time, and don't really see a coherent criticism of my logic.
Thank you for taking me at my word when I say I didn't down-vote you. I don't down-vote people for simple disagreements.
But let me finish with this:
Yes, it was an analogy. Yes, he was using it to set the scene to make a valid point. Yes, the article was mildly insightful.
The point I was trying to make - no doubt badly - is that his leading statement just provoked the reaction: Well, that's wrong. As such, as a rhetorical device, it was particularly badly chosen. Some members of his readership were always going to react badly to it because it's possibly wrong.
The points you and I are discussing here are the true bikeshedding. Whether one should interpret such statements logically, literally, or however is not the point. Analogies should be chosen carefully lest they distract from the point, rather than enhance it. This discussion essentially proves that point.
Two hours ago I conceded the analogy was poorly chosen. I'm not sure what else you have to say.
It's not clear to me what you of my writings you think are logical nonsense.
It's the quip about "your outrage contradicts findings in research". A contradiction occurs when it's logically impossible for two propositions to both be true at the same time. My disappointment (not outrage) is a sentiment, not a proposition; it can't contradict anything.
And you may be disappointed, but research says
that people form opinions very quickly. To try
to take a stance that this should not be the
case is a little odd. So I guess I don't
understand your point.
How is it odd, exactly, to be disappointed that people form opinions based on knee-jerk reactions rather than thoughtful consideration?
Ah - I see. Thanks for the clarification. You see, when you wrote:
... you can't be bothered to read more than
five words before formulating an opinion ...
... it sounded a lot like you were annoyed, bordering perhaps on being outraged. To be annoyed, or even simply disappointed, with things that simply are the case seems illogical. Research suggests that rapid formation of opinion is the norm. You were disappointed/annoyed/outraged/whatever. To be so is perhaps reasonable, but certainly counter-indicated.
(BTW - I've taken the opportunity to remove the grammatical error - hope you don't mind.)
Perhaps I shouldn't've used the word "contradiction," but since you were insisting that treating writings as pure logic is wrong, I thought it not inappropriate. "My bad" seems to be the recent vernacular for that.
With regards agreeing that the analogy is poorly chosen, and whether I have anything to say to add to that, you said this:
I agree that Derek's analogy was poorly chosen for
his audience. Clearly, he should have anticipated
that people would be pedantic enough to bikeshed
over whether or not fish actually realize they are
in water.
Then here you say:
Two hours ago I conceded the analogy was
poorly chosen. I'm not sure what else you
have to say.
There is more than one way for an analogy to be poorly chosen.
Let P be the point you want to make. Let A be the situation you want to use as an analogy. Let f be the mapping from A to P. You understand, of course, that I'm using these purely for convenience of expression, and not because I want to be mathematically precise.
Then we have f:A->P. There are several things we want of a good analogy.
The analogy A should be something we are familiar with and agree with, thereby making it easier to see the point that is in it.
The mapping should carry that point into the new situation, thereby forming the necessary association.
Another point is that f should in some sense be "natural" and not excessively tortured.
But to me, above all, A should be true!
So there's more than one aspect of the poor chosenedness of an analogy. One is when it doesn't assist the point. One is when it's too tortured to be effective. And one is when it simply isn't true.
To me, that makes the opening comments more than just bike-shedding.
And that actually brings me to the main reason I wrote this additional comment.
You write:
How is it odd, exactly, to be disappointed that
people form opinions based on knee-jerk reactions
rather than thoughtful consideration?
I don't think it's odd to be disappointed. I think it's perfectly reasonable. It's odd to take a stance that it shouldn't be otherwise. Perhaps you don't.
But in all this my point is that ...
Good writing takes that into account and works with it, not against it.
The analogy was poorly chosen - we agree. That makes using it an example of bad writing. Good communicators need to avoid such mistakes, and understanding the thought and emotional processes inherent in their readers can help.
Your very first comment in this thread was:
It's an analogy, not a logical conditional.
I was trying to demonstrate that that's not really the point. The point is that for many of his expected audience it's actually an actively bad analogy. Giving the author credit and trying to work out how it could be a good analogy - which is what's expected of good authors - is what leads down the never ending, unfulfilling, pointless meanderings about logic versus language, knee-jerk reactions, disappointment that things are the way they are, and so on.
Let's see if we agree on these:
* Good writing is hard.
* Working at it is worth-while.
* Having people point out your mistakes is of value.
* Bad analogies can detract from the effectiveness of a piece.
* Internet debates often get side-tracked down pointless side-issues.
* People form opinions (disappointingly) quickly
* Good writing takes that into account and tries to use it positively.
This is true even on a much more micro level. As a Chicagoan who recently moved to moved to Milwaukee (< 100 miles) I'm continually surprised by cultural differences. There's still a lot the two cities have in common but in day-to-day living the differences really start to show.
I.e. I meant ion to a random friend in Chicago that I'm bummed there's no way for me to take transit to work and I get sympathetic agreement. I mention the same to someone in Milwaukee and they look at me like I have two heads (why would you want to do that?)
I respect you but you sound very naive (not to say dumb) to me. Do you never read books, watch movies and speak to people about other places in the world at all?
Not important but just a small error that always bugs me - i.e. equates to "that is to say", so it shouldn't be used to replace e.g. meaning "for example" - unless that transit story is the entirity of the cultural differences you talk of.
It seems to be a common mistake that non-native speakers make. For instance, I myself have just recently learned (thank you HN!) the difference between i.e. and e.g. (somehow I always thought that i.e. == for example), and since then corrected some friends in that matter.
I've lost my edit overnight so I guess it stays, but I apologize for the error, I never really understood the difference between the two until now. Thanks, I will try to remember this for the future.
Not to be "That Guy," but where you've written "I.e." I think you mean "For example," which is "e.g." It took me several seconds to realize what it was you most likely meant, and it really detracted from the point of your story.
Most people don't care about these things, and that's cool, but clear and effective writing is important in all fields (and Edsger W. Dijkstra said "Besides a mathematical inclination, an exceptionally good mastery of one's native tongue is the most vital asset of a competent programmer." - I don't agree with everything Dijkstra wrote, but this one is relevant and true enough.)
Mistakes like this can really detract from getting the message across.
Some Latin phrases and abbreviations should now be considered part of the English language.
Of course that means that their meaning is (in principle) decoupled from what they used to mean in Latin, and maybe one day it will be obviously correct to say that one meaning of "i.e." in English is "for example". But that day is not yet.
No, understood, but when using Latin abbreviations one should still choose the correct one. I've always assumed that Dijkstra meant that one should attempt to gain mastery in the language one was using to communicate.
It always amazes and humbles me how well non-native English speakers communicate in English. I was trying to help, not to criticize or condemn.
If you're not familiar with Derek, which wouldn't be hard to believe as he's not a big self-promoter, you owe yourself to go read the essays on his website. At worse, you'll grab great little nuggets of wisdom.
He's also very kind and approachable. A great example of a real "rich" person in this world.
>"no one going to secure you out of death"
Maybe some translation showing, but this is a very insightful observation. People want all the security they can get, but the inevitable is true for all of us, so better make the most of what you have.
I've met a lot of mainland Chinese who want to start a business. Others want to be a manager, or work for the government, but that's only possible if they have the right connections.
The interesting thing about this lecture is, that it doesn't actually help you to see the "water". You maybe understand this fact theoretically. But without outside experience you will never know in which points you actually just follow a specific culture.
Personally the lecture I learned for myself, when I made this experience in a foreign country, is that I am a lot less like "So stupid how this foreigner behaves." when I see something strange to me. I try now, not to feel too much like I am something better, because I would never do so.
I was speaking to a business school class here in Singapore. I asked, “How many people would like to start their own company some day?” In a room of 50 people, only one hand (reluctantly) went up.
I live in Singapore, and I wonder which school that is. I can't imagine 98% of students in that room not wanting to start their own company some day, at all when they are in business school.
I remember 4 of us planning to start a business when I was in school in Singapore more than 10 years ago and all 4 of us were in electrical engineering.
I've spent some time in Malaysia (around Penang), and most of the chinese malaysian I knew wanted to start their own business and considered being an employee to be something almost shameful... I've never seen a community of people more entrepreneurial.
I always assumed that it was the same in Singapore.
The part about people living with their parents is completely true though...
No, generally Malaysians are definitely way more entrepreneurial than Singaporeans.
Singapore has a much more stable environment and state-managed vibe. Over decades, this tends to encourage less entrepreneurial spirit in people here. This is changing recently, especially with the younger generation here though.
But I'd still be surprise of that kind of response in a business school here.
Because the future is perceived as more advanced than the past, having built on the notions/achievements/etc., of the past. Arrow of time points in one direction. (At least for humans)
> the future is perceived as more advanced than the past
This is a very recent development, and it's still not universal. For the longest time, people believed that things were better in the past, that we are slowly moving away from a golden age, and that things are getting worse.
Some concrete examples are the biblical Garden of Eden/Armageddon; beliefs in Atlantis and other mystical places; the admiration for the Greek and Roman times, especially during the dark ages.
Think you of the fact that a deaf person cannot hear. Then, what deafness may we not all possess? What senses do we lack that we cannot see and cannot hear another world all around us? Frank Herbert, Dune, P.40
I'm not an American and I never went to business school, but this sounds weird to me. Isn't the whole point of going to business school to start business? I guess not, then :)
No, the whole point of going to a business school is to manage a medium/big business or grow a medium business into a big business. We have not yet figured out what exactly makes a new business venture succeed (apart from having heuristics in the most general terms). We have had better luck with the question of "How do I manage an existing business?" or "How do I grow the volume of business?" which is what the business schools teach (apart from a couple of entrepreneurship courses).
Well that just plain isn't the case. Up and down are relative directions, not absolutes, and as fish are unable to think like this, we (humans) are the only ones able to define "up" or "down".
Even for us they are relative, but generally speaking on earth they are defined either by gravity or by feet and head on a human body standing up. Either way, whatever way a fish swims, it's not upside down by our definitions. And however you chose to define it, we still class it by our definition, not by "what might we think if we were a fish capable of human levels of thought?".
And as to front/back... well that's theoretially described by the direction of the animal's normal movement. But regardless of that, again if you are defining a fish, it can only be defined by our grammar, not by their world.
that is, "back" would usually mean the location of the spine. Regarding how the fish perceives or thinks about its orientation I think this is impossible to say!
Yes they aren't identical situations, but you'll notice in your diagram that there is a downward force acting on the fish called "gravity", which is the point I was making - that gravity is acting on fish and humans regardless of what upward forces are also present.
Try to appreciate the sense in which his statement might be true before nitpicking. It's true that free-fall feels substantially different from floating underwater, or even lying on a soft surface (the last two are more similar subjectively than free fall - the force resisting gravity is spread over your body).
