I've been a keen defender of the Chinese education system (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=482513) and once again I applause this arrangement; I do not, however, applaud the NYT for publishing this piece - great as it is - in the news section.
(1) A productive society is one with experts. (2) Expertise is only accomplished with relentless practice. (3) The most productive society will be accomplished if citizens are made to constantly work at their discipline. (made one minor edit)
You haven't supplied a definition of the term "expert". It turns out that the word "expert" is usually defined in one of 3 ways:
(a) an expert is a person with unusual skills, talent, or productive abilities
(b) an expert is a person who has a lot of experience in a particular field, job, branch of inquiry, etc.
(c) both (a) and (b)
So you can unpack your reasoning in one of 3 ways:
Using (a): "A productive society is one with productive people. Productiveness is acquired only through practice. So a society that forces its people to practice all the time will be most productive."
Using (b): "A productive society is one in which everyone has practiced a lot. 'Having practiced a lot' is achieved only by practicing a lot. Therefore the society that forces everyone to practice a lot will be most productive."
Using (c): "A productive society is one in which everyone got productive by practicing a lot. Everyone gets productive by practicing a lot only if they practice a lot. So a society in which everyone practices a lot is the most productive society."
or using commutation, the above becomes:
"A society in which everyone practices a lot to become productive is productive if everyone practices a lot, so the most productive society is one in which everyone is forced to practice as much as possible."
(a) begs the question of how productivity is acquired. (b) begs the question of the value of large amounts of practice, and (c) is a tautology.
If you do much reading about the history of science, technology, or industry, you'll find that a certain level of practice/proficiency are very important, but that many of the achievements we celebrate were due as much to luck or circumstance as to doing huge amounts of extra homework every day.
So spending too much time practicing a few skills makes you worse off, because you limit the chances that you will have one of those lucky experiences that will lead to something genuinely new. Of course, you'll look really diligent and studious, and no one is going to tell you that you should work less or study less, but the economic concepts of "diminishing returns" and "opportunity cost" are valuable here.
You don't have to take my word for it, though. That was the theme of question #2 on this year's Gao Kao:
mnemonicsloth, thank you for the response I appreciate the time and effort that went into writing it. Both (a), (b), and (c) have been incorrectly dismissed.
(a) does not beg the question, we can see this is so if we more obviously differentiate between productive-society and productive-people; I don't understand why you confused the issue by opting for the same word. So the argument becomes:
1. A productive-society is one with productive-people.//
2. Productive-people are attained through people practicing.//
3. So, a productive-society is attained through people practicing.//
We can make this even more clear by exchanging 'productive people' for 'talented people':
1. A productive society is one with talented people.//
2. Talented people are made through practice.//
3. So, a productive society is made through practice.//
(b) does not beg the question, it is easy to equate 'Having practiced a lot' and 'Practicing a lot' given the impression of circularity. We can simplify the argument to make it clearer (also your first premise is v. unclear). Instead:
1. A productive society is one in which everyone is practiced.//
2. Being practiced requires 100,000h of practice.//
3. A productive society is one in which everyone has had 100,000 of practice.//
(c), being a tautology does not invalidate an argument.
Being a logic student I love all this, awaiting your reply.
Even if the methods you defend were the most effective (and they're not), you are either assuming everyone wants to slave away for the "greater good" or that they should do so regardless. In other words, you have decided that the goal of breeding "experts" ought to be paramount for everyone. I can assure you that you are not qualified to make this claim, and no one else is either.
Comments
I've been a keen defender of the Chinese education system (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=482513) and once again I applause this arrangement; I do not, however, applaud the NYT for publishing this piece - great as it is - in the news section.
The argument you give is flawed:
(1) A productive society is one with experts. (2) Expertise is only accomplished with relentless practice. (3) The most productive society will be accomplished if citizens are made to constantly work at their discipline. (made one minor edit)
You haven't supplied a definition of the term "expert". It turns out that the word "expert" is usually defined in one of 3 ways:
(a) an expert is a person with unusual skills, talent, or productive abilities
(b) an expert is a person who has a lot of experience in a particular field, job, branch of inquiry, etc.
(c) both (a) and (b)
So you can unpack your reasoning in one of 3 ways:
Using (a): "A productive society is one with productive people. Productiveness is acquired only through practice. So a society that forces its people to practice all the time will be most productive."
Using (b): "A productive society is one in which everyone has practiced a lot. 'Having practiced a lot' is achieved only by practicing a lot. Therefore the society that forces everyone to practice a lot will be most productive."
Using (c): "A productive society is one in which everyone got productive by practicing a lot. Everyone gets productive by practicing a lot only if they practice a lot. So a society in which everyone practices a lot is the most productive society."
or using commutation, the above becomes: "A society in which everyone practices a lot to become productive is productive if everyone practices a lot, so the most productive society is one in which everyone is forced to practice as much as possible."
(a) begs the question of how productivity is acquired. (b) begs the question of the value of large amounts of practice, and (c) is a tautology.
If you do much reading about the history of science, technology, or industry, you'll find that a certain level of practice/proficiency are very important, but that many of the achievements we celebrate were due as much to luck or circumstance as to doing huge amounts of extra homework every day.
So spending too much time practicing a few skills makes you worse off, because you limit the chances that you will have one of those lucky experiences that will lead to something genuinely new. Of course, you'll look really diligent and studious, and no one is going to tell you that you should work less or study less, but the economic concepts of "diminishing returns" and "opportunity cost" are valuable here.
You don't have to take my word for it, though. That was the theme of question #2 on this year's Gao Kao:
http://sun-zoo.com/chinageeks/2009/06/08/2009-gaokao-essay-q...
mnemonicsloth, thank you for the response I appreciate the time and effort that went into writing it. Both (a), (b), and (c) have been incorrectly dismissed.
(a) does not beg the question, we can see this is so if we more obviously differentiate between productive-society and productive-people; I don't understand why you confused the issue by opting for the same word. So the argument becomes:
1. A productive-society is one with productive-people.// 2. Productive-people are attained through people practicing.// 3. So, a productive-society is attained through people practicing.//
We can make this even more clear by exchanging 'productive people' for 'talented people':
1. A productive society is one with talented people.// 2. Talented people are made through practice.// 3. So, a productive society is made through practice.//
(b) does not beg the question, it is easy to equate 'Having practiced a lot' and 'Practicing a lot' given the impression of circularity. We can simplify the argument to make it clearer (also your first premise is v. unclear). Instead:
1. A productive society is one in which everyone is practiced.// 2. Being practiced requires 100,000h of practice.// 3. A productive society is one in which everyone has had 100,000 of practice.//
(c), being a tautology does not invalidate an argument.
Being a logic student I love all this, awaiting your reply.
Even if the methods you defend were the most effective (and they're not), you are either assuming everyone wants to slave away for the "greater good" or that they should do so regardless. In other words, you have decided that the goal of breeding "experts" ought to be paramount for everyone. I can assure you that you are not qualified to make this claim, and no one else is either.