This episode concludes the series on Jin Li's fantastic book Cultural Foundations of Learning, East and West. After reviewing the key differences between the cultures of learning, we quickly look once again at the evidence for these claims. Then we will see what Chinese teachers think of American educational practices. Finally, I will add some commentary of where in my own learning I have some apparently Eastern views and practices. Enjoy the episode.

This is the final part of the series on Jin Li's book Cultural Foundations of Learning, East and West before the summary and conclusion. Speech is seen in the West as a distinct personal quality, a right, a leadership trait, and an art. Rhetoric was part of university curricula since the Middle Ages, and we celebrate famous orators like Cicero, Martin Luther King, and Winston Churchill. But in the East, speech is not seen so favourably. Chinese people assume that those who speak less are likely the more intelligent (in America it is those who speak more who are thus perceived), and Chinese culture has a general distrust of speaking, seeing it as inferior to action and potentially a way to mislead. Notably, unlike Cicero, King, and Churchill, there are no famous speakers in East Asia. This different attitude to speaking has consequences for education. Notably, we know from experiment that Chinese people's thought process is inhibited when they vocalise, whereas this is not true for Americans. But it also leads to a different set of educational aims and practices, and changes what is valued in students. Enjoy the episode.

This is a continuation of the series on Jin Li's book Cultural Foundations of Learning, East and West. In this recording, we will see how mothers interact with their children in such a way as to promote their cultural worldview, which goes a long way to explaining how the culture is perpetuated. Interestingly, it is clear from the sample interactions that the children often do not know how to respond to the parent, and so have not yet learned the cultural mindset, so we get a real sense of attitudinal transmission going on through the interactions. Enjoy the episode.

This is a continuation of the series on Jin Li's book Cultural Foundations of Learning, East and West. In this episode, we will see the emotional side of learning, with a Western focus on interest, curiosity, and enquiry juxtaposed against an Eastern focus on dedication, conviction, and commitment. This also leads to a different conceptualisation of time within the sphere of learning, which leads to concepts like success and failure make less sense in a Chinese cultural context. Since the process of learning never ends (or, at least, is considered to be very long), one cannot that one has reached "success" or "failure" at any stage, as things could always get better (through application and virtue) or worse (through becoming slack and irresponsible). Westerners, in contrast, have a much shorter-term and piecemeal view, seeing motivation as dependent on the nature of the material (empirically shown to not be important to Easterners), and viewing learning problems as requiring technical solutions (rather than heart- and character-based solutions proposed by the East). This is also reflected in (Western) psychology research, with emphases on achievement motivation, intrinsic motivation, and self-esteem, none of which have much currency or empirical validity, or for that matter make any sense, in an East Asian context. Enjoy the episode.

This is a continuation of the discussion of Jin Li's book Cultural Foundations of Learning, East and West. In this recording, I discuss the differences between Western learning process concepts (active learning, exploration and enquiry, critical thinking, and self-expression) and Chinese ones (sincerity, diligence, endurance of hardship, perseverance, and concentration). Enjoy the episode.

This is the third in a series of recordings on Jin Li's book Cultural Foundations of Learning, East and West. In this episode we will see a range of empirical data reflecting the differences between the cultures in question, mostly from psychology, including issues of motivation, attitudes to competition, and the language which is used to describe learning. I will also discuss British and Chinese students' views of the nature of understanding, pointing out what existing cognitive science has to say about this issue. Enjoy the episode.

This is the second in a series of recordings on Jin Li's book Cultural Foundations of Learning, East and West. In this part, we will see how the fundamental aims of education differ among the cultures in question, and how this is grounded in philosophical traditions that go back thousands of years. At the end, we will see a startling and unexpected piece of evidence which supports the author's hypothesis. Enjoy the episode.

You may have noticed that I am generally quite disappointed in professors of education. It seems that the work of cognitive scientists, (some) psychologists, anthropologists, (some) economists, historians, and even machine learning researchers and philosophers is reliable, trustworthy, and can offer a good contribution, whereas that has not been my experience with people explicitly employed by university education departments. However, Jin Li breaks that trend. And boy, how she breaks it. Cultural Foundations of Learning, East and West follows Jin Li's research into the nature and causes of differences in learning beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours between Westerners (mainly European-Americans) and people from "the East" (mainly Chinese, Taiwanese, and Chinese-Americans). She goes into issues of parenting, teaching techniques, student attitudes, language usage, and underlying philosophy. Overall, she paints a coherent picture which is invaluable to helping see the water in which we are swimming. What is really striking about her work is the degree to which she peers into people's souls. By explicitly stating hidden assumptions of Western culture, she not only deftly expresses how well she understands you (which can be a bit unnerving), but demonstrates how your most deeply held beliefs, so deep that you would not have even considered them beliefs but obvious truisms, not only don't have to be accepted by other cultures, but in fact usually aren't. In the process, she peers into her own soul (with the help of a large body of cultural evidence) to reveal the thinking style of her own Chinese origins. The result is mind-expanding in the way only good anthropology can be. I will be covering this book over many parts. This first part will serve as an introduction to the main themes of the book, and to the author herself. Enjoy the episode. ### RELATED EPISODES 39a, b. The Geography of Though by Richard Nisbett (on the differences between "Eastern" and "Western" cultures more broadly, not just about learning) 106a-h. The Anthroplogy of Childhood by David Lancy (comparing childhood across many human societies, not just "East vs. West")

"It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working. And here, precisely, lies the mystery." The above text is from David Graeber's super-viral article On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs. His basic, audacious thesis is that there is a large and increasing number of "bullshit" hours worked in the economy, through a combination of some outright "bullshit jobs", and previously normal jobs that have become increasingly "bullshitised". Graeber's intention with the word "bullshit" is completely unnecessary work that is useful to nobody, and a "bullshit job" typically contains much pretending to work while actually browsing social media, as well as carrying out a number of tasks that really don't need doing, but not being able to face up to the Kafkaesque reality head-on as there appears to be a taboo about letting people know that you aren't doing anything, or that your job is pointless. Ironically, such soul-destroying employment is often considered to be quite prestigious and sought-after by outsiders (who can't see what your day-to-day looks like), which only intensifies the confusion and feeling of being lost that holders of such jobs experience. It must be noted that jobs which are merely unpleasant, "shit jobs", are not in the same category. Being a cleaner at a university, for example, might lead to you being badly paid and looked down upon, but your job really counts. This is evidenced by the fact that if you strike, there will be problems. Compare this with the case in the 1970's when there was a strike of Irish banks for many months, and yet there appeared to be no problem, and the economy trundled along without a hitch. Graeber's article unleashed a reaction that he couldn't have possibly predicted. Not only did the article become so viral that, in the weeks after it was published, the site hosting it repeatedly crashed from the number of visitors (it was apparently particularly popular in finance circles), and anonymous donors paid for adverts quoting the original article to be placed on the London Underground; Graeber also received so much press and mail that he ended up able to conduct a book-length study on the subject on the basis of the qualitative data that he managed to gather. Bullshit jobs are a real conundrum, as they are theoretically impossible in an idealised capitalist system. Graeber rises to the challenge of at least trying to explain their existence. After proposing a taxonomy of bullshit jobs (flunkies, goons, duct-tapers, box-tickers, and taskmasters), the author leads us to compare the current situation with feudalism, pointing out that the idea of an economic sphere separate from politics only arose in the Enlightenment because that's the only point when it started to make sense - prior to that, economics and politics were too tightly intertwined for such an idea to even have been considered. On that basis, we can see how an economic system that is heavily geared towards redistribution rather than production (like feudalism), together with a historically unusual ideology of work and time, could lead us to the present situation. This book is certainly a mind-expanding and wild intellectual ride, but it appears that the study of bullshit employment is only in its infancy. Nevertheless, I certainly believe the question to be relevant to education. If education is supposed to prepare people to enter the workforce, and the workforce is significantly, or even predominantly, engaged in bullshit, what does that say about what we should be preparing young people for? Enjoy the episode.

I was recently contacted by a fan of the show asking for advice in the choice of their research topic. Oddly, the best advice I could give them pertained to philosophy of science. In this episode, I expand on what I told them, to explain the most important ideas in the philosophy of science that I think are worth knowing about. My ultimate target is Imre Lakatos. If you can understand Lakatos' idea of research programs then you have all you need. However, in order to properly understand Lakatos, you need to know about Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigms, "normal" science, and scientific revolutions; and to understand Kuhn, it helps to have some grounding in what Karl Popper had to say about falsificationism before him. I add in Francis Bacon as the founder of science and William of Occam just to mention his timeless razor. The "feel" of this episode is to say that science is done by people, and people are imperfect. Philosophers of science have long discussed the ways in which science should be (or is) done, and as we get to Kuhn and Lakatos it becomes more a case of explaining the often infuriating way that people don't seem to rationally update their worldviews. Paul Feyerabend makes an appearance between Kuhn and Lakatos in this episode to show off some of the more anarchistic views of science, and to help demonstrate through the apparent "cheating" of Galileo and the failings of the Copernican system how sometimes a little stubborn imagination in the face of rational refutation has been good for scientific progress. I am also very happy to bring in my favourite scientific paper of all time, The Myth of Language Universals: Language Diversity and its Importance for Cognitive Science by Evans and Levinson. I use it as an example of how a longstanding theory seems to be alive and kicking despite what seem to be decades of continual refutation, and how this exemplifies Lakatos' idea of research programs, while also seizing the opportunity to talk a little bit about the wonders of linguistic diversity. Overall, I hope that I can convince some people of the relevance of ideas in the philosophy of science to the much more practical issues of research, including why people who are wrong are so hard to convince. Enjoy the episode.