Nonsense among friends is not the problem here, clearly. It’s nonsense let loose among hundreds of millions of people simultaneously. That’s been a problem for every government since the beginning of government. And it’s one the Chinese largely solved 2500 years ago and, thanks to which, have thrived ever since.
As John Stewart Mill[1] observed, “The Chinese are remarkable in the excellence of their apparatus for implanting, as far as possible, the best wisdom they have in every mind in the community” and, Mill might have added, “Slowing the unconfined spread of nonsense”. That’s the job of their Chief Censor, who is usually the country’s leading public intellectual (as he is now). Imagine Noam Chomsky as media referee and you get the flavor of Chinese censorship. Young people, especially university students, find it constricting. Their parents say they understand the necessity of it and thinks it’s well-managed. Their grandparents think that the government has gone to the dogs, permitting pornography, and ….
Official information has always been treasured in China, because those who heeded it prospered while those who did not languished: as they still do. Jack Ma will heed whatever advice he gets today because doing so has always been the smart way to bet. He’s talking to geniuses, guys who are far, far smarter than he, who are responsible for their country’s next 25 years.
Senior officials practiced–and still practice–xuānchuán–propaganda, transforming the people through honorable behavior and instruction–and lectured on the Emperor’s Sacred Maxims while exemplifying them in daily life (as they still do):
Highly esteem filial piety and brotherly submission to give due weight to social relations.
Behave generously toward your family to promote harmony and peace.
Cultivate peace within the neighborhood to prevent quarrels and lawsuits.
Respect farming and the cultivation of mulberry trees to ensure sufficient clothing and food.
Be moderate and economical in order to avoid wasting away your livelihood.
Give weight to schools and academies in order to honor the scholar.
Wipe out strange beliefs to elevate the correct doctrine.
Elucidate the laws in order to warn the ignorant and obstinate.
Show propriety and tactful courtesy to elevate customs and manners.
Work diligently in your chosen callings to quiet your ambitions.
Instruct sons and younger brothers to keep them from doing wrong.
Hold back false accusations to safeguard the good and honest.
Warn against sheltering deserters lest you share their punishment.
Promptly and fully pay your taxes lest you need be pressed to pay them.
Join together in hundreds and tithings to end theft and robbery.
Free yourself from enmity and anger to show respect for your body and life.
What is the process for choosing the state censor, and the long term planning geniuses? How do these processes systematically select for very intelligent people with reliably correct beliefs?
China values shares certain types of knowledge but it doesn’t value sharing information about mistakes. Sharing information about mistakes is vital to building scientific knowledge and will be vital to achieve further goals such as during cancer and fighting aging.
Instead of valuing the scientific progress and the freedom it needs to talk about what doesn’t work the Chinese government pushes traditional Chinese medicine and got the WHO to adept classifications about blocked Chi flow.
Even when China has plenty of smart people who are willing to work long hours it won’t be able build to the kind of scientific productivity that brought the West it’s wealth as long as it’s not more open about talking about what goes wrong.
Chinese are strong on propaganda, Americans are weak on teaching evolution at schools… how could we achieve a middle way, where the established knowledge is neither “sacred” nor “just your opinion, man”?
I suppose in the West at least you can have a bubble that promotes good knowledge, and the theory is that in competition between bubbles, the good thoughts will prevail in long term. Except… academia does not really work this way, at least when it comes to funding, does it? So maybe we are getting the worse of both systems here, where it’s neither competition of ideas (as the tradition would suggest in West), nor governance by highly educated experts (at the tradition would suggest in China), but rather decisions of bureaucrats-managers optimizing to do the safe thing and cover their asses. (I am probably exaggerating here a lot, dunno.)
There are parts of academia that work and parts that doesn’t. At the moment many parts of Western academia struggle with the replication crisis and that struggle is about accepting that errors are made. The progress is not as fast as I would like it, but in China this kind of looking at what went wrong is much harder.
Losing face is a big deal in China and it prevents analysis of what goes wrong.
Nonsense among friends is not the problem here, clearly. It’s nonsense let loose among hundreds of millions of people simultaneously. That’s been a problem for every government since the beginning of government. And it’s one the Chinese largely solved 2500 years ago and, thanks to which, have thrived ever since.
As John Stewart Mill[1] observed, “The Chinese are remarkable in the excellence of their apparatus for implanting, as far as possible, the best wisdom they have in every mind in the community” and, Mill might have added, “Slowing the unconfined spread of nonsense”. That’s the job of their Chief Censor, who is usually the country’s leading public intellectual (as he is now). Imagine Noam Chomsky as media referee and you get the flavor of Chinese censorship. Young people, especially university students, find it constricting. Their parents say they understand the necessity of it and thinks it’s well-managed. Their grandparents think that the government has gone to the dogs, permitting pornography, and ….
Official information has always been treasured in China, because those who heeded it prospered while those who did not languished: as they still do. Jack Ma will heed whatever advice he gets today because doing so has always been the smart way to bet. He’s talking to geniuses, guys who are far, far smarter than he, who are responsible for their country’s next 25 years.
Senior officials practiced–and still practice–xuānchuán–propaganda, transforming the people through honorable behavior and instruction–and lectured on the Emperor’s Sacred Maxims while exemplifying them in daily life (as they still do):
Highly esteem filial piety and brotherly submission to give due weight to social relations.
Behave generously toward your family to promote harmony and peace.
Cultivate peace within the neighborhood to prevent quarrels and lawsuits.
Respect farming and the cultivation of mulberry trees to ensure sufficient clothing and food.
Be moderate and economical in order to avoid wasting away your livelihood.
Give weight to schools and academies in order to honor the scholar.
Wipe out strange beliefs to elevate the correct doctrine.
Elucidate the laws in order to warn the ignorant and obstinate.
Show propriety and tactful courtesy to elevate customs and manners.
Work diligently in your chosen callings to quiet your ambitions.
Instruct sons and younger brothers to keep them from doing wrong.
Hold back false accusations to safeguard the good and honest.
Warn against sheltering deserters lest you share their punishment.
Promptly and fully pay your taxes lest you need be pressed to pay them.
Join together in hundreds and tithings to end theft and robbery.
Free yourself from enmity and anger to show respect for your body and life.
__________________________________
[1] On Liberty. John Stewart Mill. 1863.
What is the process for choosing the state censor, and the long term planning geniuses? How do these processes systematically select for very intelligent people with reliably correct beliefs?
China values shares certain types of knowledge but it doesn’t value sharing information about mistakes. Sharing information about mistakes is vital to building scientific knowledge and will be vital to achieve further goals such as during cancer and fighting aging.
Instead of valuing the scientific progress and the freedom it needs to talk about what doesn’t work the Chinese government pushes traditional Chinese medicine and got the WHO to adept classifications about blocked Chi flow.
Even when China has plenty of smart people who are willing to work long hours it won’t be able build to the kind of scientific productivity that brought the West it’s wealth as long as it’s not more open about talking about what goes wrong.
Chinese are strong on propaganda, Americans are weak on teaching evolution at schools… how could we achieve a middle way, where the established knowledge is neither “sacred” nor “just your opinion, man”?
I suppose in the West at least you can have a bubble that promotes good knowledge, and the theory is that in competition between bubbles, the good thoughts will prevail in long term. Except… academia does not really work this way, at least when it comes to funding, does it? So maybe we are getting the worse of both systems here, where it’s neither competition of ideas (as the tradition would suggest in West), nor governance by highly educated experts (at the tradition would suggest in China), but rather decisions of bureaucrats-managers optimizing to do the safe thing and cover their asses. (I am probably exaggerating here a lot, dunno.)
There are parts of academia that work and parts that doesn’t. At the moment many parts of Western academia struggle with the replication crisis and that struggle is about accepting that errors are made. The progress is not as fast as I would like it, but in China this kind of looking at what went wrong is much harder.
Losing face is a big deal in China and it prevents analysis of what goes wrong.