![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
icecharcoals.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAs I am entering into my last semester of what has been a rollercoaster of a college career, I feel that I have plenty of experience as to how the business and politics of higher education “works” in America, the ridiculous nature of the student climate, and more. Therefore, I do not believe that the conclusions I am about to draw are anywhere near blasphemous- but you tell me.
A little info about me. I am a soon-to-be graduating undergraduate senior who is managing to complete a degree in three years. I study international relations- more on that choice in a future post- am not yet old enough legally imbibe alcohol in the United States, and I really, really dislike the nature of thought processes in the general student community. Maybe it is just the nature of students in my major, but I don’t think that my experience is exclusive. So here is what I have to say.
Today in America, college education tells students WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think. And that mode of thinking is reinforced by a groupthink mentality of the general student body. I call it “the groupthink dilemma”. Boom. I said it.
Here is an example of what I am thinking about. I was in class- Political Economy- and we were talking about the world currency system. It was here that I vocalized what I found out was an opinion that went against the general groupthink in the room (warning: economics approaching).
I said that China has every right to peg their currency to the U.S. dollar the way that they do- it isn’t a “crime” like many representatives in Congress seem to think- pegging exchange rates were the norm for the longest time in history, and it benefits their economy in ways that a free floating exchange rate wouldn’t be able to provide.
Groans ensued around the room, matched with rather rapid and violent shooting up of hands from other students, who seemed to think that dislocating their shoulder sockets was a way of showing me how much they disagreed with my statement. I was subsequently attacked- rhetoric ensued that China is bad for the US economy, how they spy on us, how they are holding all of our national debt hostage, “undervalue” their currency and that just isn’t fair- one girl literally repeated this for 3 minutes- no backing up of her claim or anything.
I have now taken two separate classes on China- history and economy. I have studied abroad in China for a summer. And I never once heard any reasoning that I learned in those classes or experiences that could be used to refute my claim from any of my fellow students.
NOT ONE PERSON COULD STATE CONCRETE EVIDENCE AS TO WHY IT IS A BAD THING, they just kept repeating that it was inherently bad, relating it to some other broad generalization as to why China is bad, and that was it. They weren’t actually thinking and critically evaluating about what I had said. It was just a reflexive nature to attack because what I said was different than the “groupthink” norm.
First, I felt bad for the Chinese international students in the room, who obviously must have been very taken aback at the blatant anti-China sentiment that just erupted in the room.
Second, I realized that even though I have an opinion that is backed by some (it is obviously not infallible) evidence, my statement was immediately marked as dissenting from the mainstream groupthink rhetoric in the United States and must be purged. There was no “debate”, no “evidence”, just ATTACK.
Sure, I expect people to disagree with each other. Variety of opinions is the spice of life. But the education system in America seems to try to get rid of variety- it teaches one opinion/viewpoint and instructs to shun all else. This is why I said before, college education tells students what to think, NOT how to think.
Very few college students in the United States actually know how to think for themselves, to have their own informed opinions (again, relating back to the groupthink dilemma as well as the general propensity to have resolute and unbudging opinions based on vague generalizations and hearsay), and to be able to dissent from what others around them have to say. This is especially the case in a class that has a blatantly biased professors, who want to project a specific viewpoint onto their students- and not even bother teaching any other mode of thinking.
The culture is one that indoctrinates students into a narrow-minded, American-centric way of thinking, and is reinforced by other students, by the American media, and by the general nature of the uninformed median voter in the United States.
But if you think about it, it really isn’t one’s fault for only being able to posses one and only one opinion, and try to savagely shut down any others. I’ll explain why now.
What I choose to blame is the two-party nature of the United States political system. In our governmental system each issue is given two possible answers/sides/opinions to have, a very black-and-white, me-vs-you, us-vs-them nature of seeing things, and it becomes the major prerogative of one side to bash the other to the ground. Seriously. Look at any political “debate” on a “news” tv channel, and this is what happens through and through. Most of the time, there is not even the need for fact-based-research on these things, it is an absolute slaughterfest where one side is hellbent on destroying the other. I also believe that this phenomenon has roots into the “us-vs-them” rhetoric of the Cold War (Democracy is good! Communism is bad! Capitalism is dandy! Communism is BAD!) This two-sided nature of the political system then bleeds over into every aspect of our lives- one opinion is right, the other is wrong. We are so indoctrinated into this “dual system” that it is literally how we think about every subject in our lives- and that includes the education system.
In reality, answers and opinions lie on a spectrum- there are many shades of gray between the obsession of “black and white” in the US. And even more, just because one has one opinion on the “black” side does not mean they are physically and mentally unable to have another on the “white” side. They do not have to exclude each other, but America just doesn’t seem to get that. You hear it from the government and on the tv and on the internet and from others students around you, so that is what must be true. Other countries with parliamentary systems have a much better time with differing opinions, because they acknowledge the spectrum that can be had. That acceptance of varietal opinion just doesn’t exist in the American climate.
America doesn’t teach its citizens how to think, only what to think.
On another level, there is rampant uninformed effects happening, but I feel like that can’t be helped as much. People don’t much like learning.
There is no such thing as an original opinion in America. Only groupthink.
If you would like to refute my opinion, I invite you to do so in the comments.
A little info about me. I am a soon-to-be graduating undergraduate senior who is managing to complete a degree in three years. I study international relations- more on that choice in a future post- am not yet old enough legally imbibe alcohol in the United States, and I really, really dislike the nature of thought processes in the general student community. Maybe it is just the nature of students in my major, but I don’t think that my experience is exclusive. So here is what I have to say.
Today in America, college education tells students WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think. And that mode of thinking is reinforced by a groupthink mentality of the general student body. I call it “the groupthink dilemma”. Boom. I said it.
Here is an example of what I am thinking about. I was in class- Political Economy- and we were talking about the world currency system. It was here that I vocalized what I found out was an opinion that went against the general groupthink in the room (warning: economics approaching).
I said that China has every right to peg their currency to the U.S. dollar the way that they do- it isn’t a “crime” like many representatives in Congress seem to think- pegging exchange rates were the norm for the longest time in history, and it benefits their economy in ways that a free floating exchange rate wouldn’t be able to provide.
Groans ensued around the room, matched with rather rapid and violent shooting up of hands from other students, who seemed to think that dislocating their shoulder sockets was a way of showing me how much they disagreed with my statement. I was subsequently attacked- rhetoric ensued that China is bad for the US economy, how they spy on us, how they are holding all of our national debt hostage, “undervalue” their currency and that just isn’t fair- one girl literally repeated this for 3 minutes- no backing up of her claim or anything.
I have now taken two separate classes on China- history and economy. I have studied abroad in China for a summer. And I never once heard any reasoning that I learned in those classes or experiences that could be used to refute my claim from any of my fellow students.
NOT ONE PERSON COULD STATE CONCRETE EVIDENCE AS TO WHY IT IS A BAD THING, they just kept repeating that it was inherently bad, relating it to some other broad generalization as to why China is bad, and that was it. They weren’t actually thinking and critically evaluating about what I had said. It was just a reflexive nature to attack because what I said was different than the “groupthink” norm.
First, I felt bad for the Chinese international students in the room, who obviously must have been very taken aback at the blatant anti-China sentiment that just erupted in the room.
Second, I realized that even though I have an opinion that is backed by some (it is obviously not infallible) evidence, my statement was immediately marked as dissenting from the mainstream groupthink rhetoric in the United States and must be purged. There was no “debate”, no “evidence”, just ATTACK.
Sure, I expect people to disagree with each other. Variety of opinions is the spice of life. But the education system in America seems to try to get rid of variety- it teaches one opinion/viewpoint and instructs to shun all else. This is why I said before, college education tells students what to think, NOT how to think.
Very few college students in the United States actually know how to think for themselves, to have their own informed opinions (again, relating back to the groupthink dilemma as well as the general propensity to have resolute and unbudging opinions based on vague generalizations and hearsay), and to be able to dissent from what others around them have to say. This is especially the case in a class that has a blatantly biased professors, who want to project a specific viewpoint onto their students- and not even bother teaching any other mode of thinking.
The culture is one that indoctrinates students into a narrow-minded, American-centric way of thinking, and is reinforced by other students, by the American media, and by the general nature of the uninformed median voter in the United States.
But if you think about it, it really isn’t one’s fault for only being able to posses one and only one opinion, and try to savagely shut down any others. I’ll explain why now.
What I choose to blame is the two-party nature of the United States political system. In our governmental system each issue is given two possible answers/sides/opinions to have, a very black-and-white, me-vs-you, us-vs-them nature of seeing things, and it becomes the major prerogative of one side to bash the other to the ground. Seriously. Look at any political “debate” on a “news” tv channel, and this is what happens through and through. Most of the time, there is not even the need for fact-based-research on these things, it is an absolute slaughterfest where one side is hellbent on destroying the other. I also believe that this phenomenon has roots into the “us-vs-them” rhetoric of the Cold War (Democracy is good! Communism is bad! Capitalism is dandy! Communism is BAD!) This two-sided nature of the political system then bleeds over into every aspect of our lives- one opinion is right, the other is wrong. We are so indoctrinated into this “dual system” that it is literally how we think about every subject in our lives- and that includes the education system.
In reality, answers and opinions lie on a spectrum- there are many shades of gray between the obsession of “black and white” in the US. And even more, just because one has one opinion on the “black” side does not mean they are physically and mentally unable to have another on the “white” side. They do not have to exclude each other, but America just doesn’t seem to get that. You hear it from the government and on the tv and on the internet and from others students around you, so that is what must be true. Other countries with parliamentary systems have a much better time with differing opinions, because they acknowledge the spectrum that can be had. That acceptance of varietal opinion just doesn’t exist in the American climate.
America doesn’t teach its citizens how to think, only what to think.
On another level, there is rampant uninformed effects happening, but I feel like that can’t be helped as much. People don’t much like learning.
There is no such thing as an original opinion in America. Only groupthink.
If you would like to refute my opinion, I invite you to do so in the comments.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 15:07 (UTC)There is definitely a divide between the Americans and non-Americans on this comm when it comes to the kind of groupthink which seems to take place; but in general all folk seem capable of such meta-mobocratic behaviour no matter whether from the left or the right, or from America or Europe.
Interesting perspective, nevertheless.
(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 16:08 (UTC)Yet another dichotomy?
Where do Africans stand in all this, I wonder.
(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 16:20 (UTC)Maybe I should define and specify better. But it pedantry often, though not always, gets in the way of a quick opinion.
(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 15:55 (UTC)Exactly. But don't expect any sympathy to this sentiment from our resident
one-party-statetwo-party-system apologetics.(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 15:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 16:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 15:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 15:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 16:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 16:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 16:32 (UTC)Generalists tend not to stay in academia unless they actually get a fellowship to All Souls (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Souls_College,_Oxford), or something similar at a comparable University. But Modern Greats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy,_Politics_and_Economics) is a pretty encompassing course which encourages wide reading and broad thinking.
Here is a list of folk with Oxford PPE degrees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_people_with_PPE_degrees). I can't think of a more disparate bunch. Tony Benn and Rupert Murdoch? Imran Khan and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto? Ed Miliband and David Cameron?
(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 15:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 16:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 16:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/12/15 16:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/12/15 18:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/12/15 18:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 16:04 (UTC)This has made me curious. Now that you've stated the problem, would you venture one step further and propose some solutions?
(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 16:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 18:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 20:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/12/15 20:55 (UTC)This stereotype has deep roots, and I think you've tangled with those roots in your college classroom encounter, in a way that bears closer examination:
What makes you believe that this "groupthink" behavior you experienced is the norm for classes other than Political Economy? As a counterexample, I remember plenty of classes that were very much oriented towards the "how" of thinking rather than the "what" of thinking. The consistent standouts were the writing classes - in particular the analysis of Shakespeare and the autobiography classes - but also the discrete math, philosophy, and religious history classes.
What makes you believe that this "groupthink" is something endemic to American classrooms (and thus in need of a uniquely American cause to justify it) and not present in classrooms from - for example - Japan, India, Brazil, Italy, France, China, et cetera?
What makes you think that the sort of debate you crave - that you believe is missing from the college experience - is supposed to take place in classrooms? Many of the best discussions I had happened during study sessions in small groups outside of class, or in common areas, or with friends I made on campus. The instructor of a class has to corral and evaluate hundreds (at least) of students every year. Do you expect each of them to be a maestro at crowd control and balancing debate at all times? Perhaps. But consider that it isn't actually their responsibility.
Are you a product of the American education system? How many people around you consider themselves exceptional - rising above their perceived epidemic of groupthink - in the same way you do? ("There is no such thing as an original opinion in America. Only groupthink." - Do you consider that an original opinion?) Did you talk to the instructor after class about how poorly your question was answered? Did you seek out one of those Chinese international students you felt sympathy for and ask them how they took it? That might have prompted a fine conversation and won you an ally. That would definitely not have been groupthink behavior. ;)
Personally, I found very little impassioned and cogent reasoning in any given classroom, but I found plenty of it in my workplace. Americans spend a lot more time working than they do in school. Why hasn't the "two-party system" destroyed that as well? Perhaps hot-button politics matters less than it appears to on cable channels and websites looking for revenue?
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/15 00:30 (UTC)For most though, when they hear China - I assume either Tank Man or a sesame chicken platter first comes to mind - and for the most part, there is no harm in that - unless you're in a position to influence others - then there probably is some harm in that. China, like us, has their upsides and downsides - their yin and yang - their Tank man and sesame chicken platter - we should consider both (and maybe a few other things) before judging.
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/15 16:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/12/15 01:04 (UTC)The reasons why it is "unfair" for China to keep its currency low are pretty simple, it makes their exports cheaper and imports more expensive. This favors their manufacturers and consumers in the markets it exports to while penalizing manufactures in their trading partners and their own consumers. Since everyone is in denial that they are a consumer who enjoys cheap stuff, we get back to "unfair". Of course, unfair is a pretty subjective term, it's really against the terms of the WTO. Actually, it's against the terms of GATT, which is referred to by the IMF, which is referred to by the terms of the WTO. All of these things have something in common, they were written by the West on terms favorable to the West, and before China was a world power. Just thought I'd mention it because fairness was mentioned. Of course, China has benefited greatly by joining into the system that the West built, so even though the West built it in their own self-interest, it seems that self-interest was pretty enlightened self-interest.
That said, fairness isn't a great basis to discuss international economics, and isn't something either China or the US should be bringing up. The real danger is that the US will respond by lowering the value of our currency. But wouldn't this be unfair to the Europeans, Brazilians, and Russians? I thought I'd ask that here because those congresspersons who would suggest lowering the value of the dollar wouldn't think of it. Again, fairness doesn't mean much, but it could cause the Europeans, Brazilians, and Russians to lower their currency as well. The biggest problem is that nobody would know where this would end and international trade and investment would slow down, slowing the world economy. The US would probably work with the EU on such things anyhow to make sure Europeans and Americans are as insulated from the effects as possible. Developing countries, the ones most dependent on foreign investment and least able to manipulate their currencies, would be hit the worst while the most developed economies would be in the best position to weather the storm. This of course wouldn't change anyone's decision making in the US, EU, or China, I just thought I'd add it since we're talking about fairness.
So, yeah, it's kind of unfair but it's also pretty dangerous. It's also part of an economic policy that has lifted almost a billion people out of extreme poverty (less than $1.25 per day) between 1981 and 2012 and is now increasing investments in Africa, possibly to do the same there, possibly to strip the continent and leave it on blocks... again.
Getting back to my original point, this is what did surprise me, that a class on Political Economy focuses on what is fair rather than what is a good idea and most importantly, how things could spin out of control. It's been a while, but I believe this is a change since I went to college.
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/15 16:17 (UTC)I completely understand why U.S. politicians dislike the fact that China's currency makes it so competitive in export markets, but is there anywhere in the WTO that says a national currency cannot be pegged under what it's supposed international value is (I am legitimately asking, I don't have such in depth knowledge of the WTO charter)? Even more, something to note about the rhetoric of Congressmen and women when discussing China's "undervalued currency". The whole argument and sentiment, to me at least, seems recycled from Japan's heyday- when the prospect of Japan overtaking the United States as the largest economy in the world didn't seem impossible- under President Reagan. At that time, all news pundits, politicians, and more could talk about was how "undervalued" the Japanese Yen was. Then, the United States called a G-5 meeting in 1985 and established the Plaza Accord- a deliberate strengthening of the Japanese Yen against the U.S. Dollar. Since the Plaza Accord, the Japanese economy has taken many hard and long hits to its economy, and hasn't achieved the same vigorous growth rate that it enjoyed before strengthening their currency. My question to you is, do you think that if China appreciates its currency, much of the same would happen?
(no subject)
Date: 9/12/15 07:33 (UTC)'Avoid manipulating exchange rates or the international monetary system in order to prevent effective balance of payments adjustment or to gain an unfair competitive advantage over other members.'
This takes effect in the WTO because the IMF is the body that is to be consulted to resolve issues of currency manipulation. Of course, this has never happened in the almost 40 years since this text was adopted, despite some pretty clear cases of currency manipulation, so yeah, it's kinda against the rules, but it's much more useful for complaints for domestic consumption that somehow countries aren't getting a fair shake.
I've never heard the Plaza Accord being blamed for Japan's decline so much as a huge asset bubble along with an aging an shrinking workforce. Both of these are very applicable to China of course. Also, anyone thinking this is the reason why manufacturing jobs went to China, and they're now moving to South East Asia, is simply wrong. Likewise those thinking that the currency is the biggest problem. China is an incredibly protectionist market. Foreign firms need to find a local partner who controls 51% of a joint venture. For this 51%, at best you will get a partner that does nothing. Worst case scenario is that they'll learn your operations and at some point, take over the entire joint venture.
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/15 07:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/12/15 11:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/12/15 19:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/12/15 10:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/12/15 16:24 (UTC)And that's a shame to hear about the groupthink that can occur the companies in your example- but power relations and command structure are extremely hard to overcome without negative repercussions, even if the company could be benefitted by dissent.
(no subject)
Date: 10/12/15 08:41 (UTC)