|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fuzzy_Dunlop
Joined: 18 Jun 2014
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: |
| I'm not upset. I'm pointing out the logical fallacy in your reasoning. |
How is it a logical fallacy to bring up other cultures when someone is saying a certain behavior is cultural? |
Look over next to my posts where my username is.
Is my username 'Free Remedial Critical Thinking Courses Here'? |
I would think that part of identifying a behavior as being specific to a certain culture would involve whether that behavior existed in other cultures. If it is present in an increasing number of cultures, one might re-examine that claim and change it to "human culture" or "hierarchical culture" or something else. Bringing up other examples is part of that investigative process and you shouldn't resist it simply because it might force another set of conclusions.
I think you are confusing logical fallacies of debate with determining the cause of an accident and in essence, the scientific method. The same logic does not necessarily apply. You are hypothesizing that an accident was caused by Korean culture. However, bringing up other cultures is in essence pointing to a 'control group'. The same things are shown in other groups. This means that your hypothesis is called into question, and legitimately so. The goal here is to determine the cause of the accident, NOT to crown a debate champion. In determining whether an accident was caused by culture, determining whether or not things are prevalent in other cultures and bringing in examples of those cultures, is not just important, but essential towards determining whether or not national culture was to blame. The presence of similar behavior (say not always being honest with authorities) across ALL cultures would indicate that such a behavior is not attributable to Korean culture, but rather part of human behavior. |
I am not hypothesizing that the accident was caused by Korean culture. - strawman
No one here has started that Korea should never have any accidents - strawman
My hypothesis is that Korean culture is partly to blame for continued fatalities in Korea.
Everytime one of these boats goes down, everyone, or almost everyone, dies. The Korean government has the power to legislate lifejacket use, but does not.
There is ample evidence of repeated disasters that often come down to the same things - regulations not in place, regulations not followed, corruption, poor decision making.
A year anger a half after Sewol, charter vessels are putting to sea with fraudulent manifests.
Do you ever wonder why only fishing vessels sink and not water taxis? I'd love to hear you opine on that.
The scientific method? You know the scientific method is still subject to the basic rules of logic, right?
Anyhow, lay it on me...
1. What is your hypothesis?
2. How will you treat it?
3. What variable are you trying to isolate?
4. Which is your control group?
5. Which is your experimental group?
6. What instruments will you use to measure any change, if any, in your isolated variable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lunar Groove Gardener
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Location: 1987 Subaru
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
..
Last edited by Lunar Groove Gardener on Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lunar Groove Gardener wrote: |
Knowledge of safety protocols and training of all personnel; maintenance, ongoing daily checking of vessels' seaworthiness, and accessibility of emergency equipment; competency in determining risks and conditions...these come in to play daily for all boat captains. Every single trip.
This is a discussion of boating safety culture and captain/crew training culture as regards survival protocols and the specific responsibilities and priorities as they differ (in my own experience) throughout Asia from my experience in N. America (with S. Korea being no exception).
This is the very core of any captain's knowledge and responsibility. In emergencies, time and again, we see clear incompetence and laxness in how these standards are applied in Asian boating culture.
One MUST compare this to the standard as mandated and regulated in other parts of the world. |
Fun fact #1.
According to CDC and USCG data, there were 610 recreational boating fatalities in 2014.
Where cause of death was known, 78 percent of fatal boating accident victims had drowned. Of those drowning victims with reported PFD usage, 84 percent were not wearing a PFD.
The highest number of recorded boating fatalities was 1,750 in 1973, with 90% of those fatalities caused by drowning.
Fun fact #2.
Commercial fishing is the #1 most deadly job in USA.
Falling overboard is the second leading cause of death among commercial fishermen, nationwide. And the reason for that? Not wearing a personal flotation device (PFD).
Something that would really be extraordinary and noteworthy would be to NOT have a dead boater or fisherpeople story in a given year, in Korea or North America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lunar Groove Gardener
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Location: 1987 Subaru
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote:
"Lax safety measures onboard were also dubbed a reason for the casualties, as many of the passengers were reportedly not wearing life jackets that were soaked from rain."...basic maintenance protocols for safety gear...captain.
Last edited by Lunar Groove Gardener on Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:28 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Culture explains everything.
Culture explains nothing.
You, apparently, MUST choose between the two extremes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lunar Groove Gardener
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Location: 1987 Subaru
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
culture
noun cul·ture \ˈkəl-chər\
: a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization (such as a business) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duhweecher
Joined: 06 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I honestly wish people would simply stop thinking that our country has civilized to a point of comparing it to developed country.
I will admit proudly:
WE ARE A GREAT COUNTRY OF PRETENDING.
Inside, when we speak in Korean, we often suffer from national level self-esteem issues that we teach to our children leading to a perpetual national-level problem of delusions. We have a great deal more civilizing to do and the problem is that we keep teaching our kids that we're so good that we have nothing to change.
That's where the problem begins and ends. And yes, I admit it.
We simply care too much about being taken seriously and being correct...we simply don't value change much at all. It's a real problem that has real social consequences. Suddenly tell people, "yes, you must inconvenience yourself with change...yep, put on those life vests" and you've created disharmony--a supreme issue in Korea. They reply, "well, we've never had to do that before. Why are you scaring us? Why aren't they super clean? Are you going to pay for my new clothes? We didn't pay for this kind of treatment." That's a major problem and it's going to make huge problems in the future.
We have *extremely* spoiled identities--Goffman style. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: |
My hypothesis is that Korean culture is partly to blame for continued fatalities in Korea.
Everytime one of these boats goes down, everyone, or almost everyone, dies. The Korean government has the power to legislate lifejacket use, but does not.
There is ample evidence of repeated disasters that often come down to the same things - regulations not in place, regulations not followed, corruption, poor decision making.
A year anger a half after Sewol, charter vessels are putting to sea with fraudulent manifests.
|
First, thanks for putting forth your thoughts and responding in good spirit.
I will say that while what you're saying is true, similar incidents happen in other countries with a stronger safety culture. Thus, is this a Korean phenomenon or just that there aren't strict oversights generally on casual boating operations around the world? Also, as I said, did those things cause the death of the people or are they just incidental problems? While such problems can be part of Korean safety culture, they aren't exclusively Korean culture. Additionally, did these take place because of culture or because of an individual's actions and choices?
| Quote: |
| Do you ever wonder why only fishing vessels sink and not water taxis? I'd love to hear you opine on that. |
I think water taxis encounter much different conditions than fishing boats. Most water taxis tend to operate within close proximity to land and calm waters. I'm not really sure you can compare the two.
| Quote: |
1. What is your hypothesis?
2. How will you treat it?
3. What variable are you trying to isolate?
4. Which is your control group?
5. Which is your experimental group?
6. What instruments will you use to measure any change, if any, in your isolated variable. |
1 and 2. I don't really have a hypothesis, only that we are attempting to determine the cause of the accident. I think if we are determining the cause of an accident, we might use a slightly different procedure. If we were going to determine whether or not a specific accident is because of culture, I think we would start with "The fishing boat accident in question is due to cultural practices in Korea, that are unique to Korea's cultural climate." I guess the observational basis of this would be that there was an accident in Korea and this might be due to culture. We'd research accident rates and past events. This would be a specific incident that we would look into and attempt to determine the cause of the accident. Or we could go more general and hypothesize that accidents around the world are influenced or caused by culture.
3. I guess the variable we would be trying to isolate would either be the affect of culture on this specific accident or establishing the criteria to determine if any accident is caused by culture. I think we would first have to establish where we could determine if culture played an impact. This would probably involve looking at the four events I states earlier which may have had an impact on causing this accident.
4. Our control group would be other fishing/boating accidents around the world.
5. Our experimental group would be this accident in question.
6. I think what we would use to measure this is whether those 4 events are uniquely or predominantly attributable to Korean culture. If such events take place at a significant rate in other cultures, then we can be fairly certain that such an event is not due to Korean culture per se.
However, I would offer an alternative way to examine this accident.
1. What caused this accident and led to the death of the people? There have been 4 primary events raised- Decision to set off in poor weather, use of lifejackets, response delay (primarily due to misleading answer from one individual), drift prediction model.
2. In order to determine whether culture impacted any of those, we would have to know if any decision in there 1) Followed cultural norms in Korea AND 2) Deviated from events leading to accidents in other cultures. 3) That those deviations led to the accident and deaths of the people involved and would not have occurred in other cultures. 4) That those deviations do not occur to any significant degree in accidents other cultures. If the accident deviates from standard practices in Korea, it cannot be because of culture. If the accident does not deviate from cultural norms in other countries, it cannot be because of culture. If those deviations did not lead to the accident itself or the deaths of people involved, the accident cannot be because of culture. If similar failures are found in accidents in other countries and such accidents are not unusually rare, it cannot be because of failure
As I explained with my response to Fox, I think there is insufficient information to determine whether the decision to set off deviated from norms as we do not know the specific conditions, nor what other fishermen/boat operators would do in similar conditions. Also, we don't know what other Korean fishermen/boaters would do in similar circumstances. This also applies to the use of lifejackets. Again, we don't know where the people on the boat were located. However, evidence strongly suggests that they were in the cabin and suffered an almost instantaneous capsizing of their boat. If its normal for people around the world to not wear lifejackets while inside the cabin of a similar boat, in similar conditions, then it would stand that such an incident is not due to culture.
As for the misleading statement, we would have to determine whether or not the delay caused by such a statement led to the deaths of those on board. Given the scale of time used in the search, and statements by witnesses suggesting that death did not result within 20 minutes of them being rescued, it stands to reason that this had no impact on people having lived or died. Similarly with the drift prediction model, we would have to know whether the Korean model suffered from significant defects and that those were somehow tied to Korean culture. Since we lack that information, we cannot determine whether or not culture impacted this event.
Examining those 4 events, and with additional information and data, we may arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not culture caused this accident specifically. Given that there are significant numbers of boating accidents in other cultures, many of which involve the lack of use of lifejackets (and likely poor weather), it is very difficult to state with certainty that this was due to culture.
Again, I highlight the example involving commercial aircraft and the widely held assumption that Korean culture was to blame as pointing out the problem with the culture argument. History has shown a significant number of incidents involving western, mostly commercial aircraft that also involve breakdowns in communication by crews and an unwillingness of subordinates to challenge superiors. We must also consider the fact that Korean commercial pilots are frequently drawn from the military ranks and that those pilots' training is at least somewhat influenced by western military instruction. That's not to say that Korean culture might not be involved. Only that such an explanation should not be so readily accepted given the number of similar incidents in non-Korean aircraft accidents.
And I'll ask you, what do you believe are the objective criteria to determine whether a specific accident is because of culture? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fuzzy_Dunlop
Joined: 18 Jun 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
First, thanks for putting forth your thoughts and responding in good spirit.
I will say that while what you're saying is true, similar incidents happen in other countries with a stronger safety culture. Thus, is this a Korean phenomenon or just that there aren't strict oversights generally on casual boating operations around the world? Also, as I said, did those things cause the death of the people or are they just incidental problems? While such problems can be part of Korean safety culture, they aren't exclusively Korean culture. Additionally, did these take place because of culture or because of an individual's actions and choices? |
Incidents happen in other countries with a stronger safety culture - Yes, they do. However, I would counter that incidents in those countries happen despite stronger safety regulations (no one has claimed that a zero accident rate is possible), while a number of avoidable incidents in Korea have happened because of a lack of safety regulations.
I don't know what you mean by "casual boating". Do you mean pleasure boating? I would say that there is a different duty of care involved for pleasure boaters and charter vessels. They are also subject to different regulations - so I don't think you can compare the two.
Just because safety issues are not exclusive to Korean culture doesn't mean there isn't an issue with that aspect of Korean culture. Different cultures can have similar traits - in the end, though, only Korea itself can be responsible for fixing safety issues in Korea. This is why bringing other countries/cultures into the debate is often irrelevant.
Did these actions take place because of an individual's actions and choices? Possibly, but wouldn't an individual's actions and choices be influenced (at least in part) by culture?
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I think water taxis encounter much different conditions than fishing boats. Most water taxis tend to operate within close proximity to land and calm waters. I'm not really sure you can compare the two. |
Actually, that's not the reason why. The reason why is that registered fishing vessels receive subsidized fuel (i.e. tax free) while water taxis do not. Thus, a lot of vessels in that size range are registered as fishing vessels even though many of them do not operate as fishing vessels or at least operate in a dual role. So, when one of them sinks - it's listed as a fishing vessel because that's what it is registered as but not necessarily what it was doing when it sank. So, now you have a system in place where a large number of vessels are operating in a capacity they are not registered/licensed for.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I don't really have a hypothesis, only that we are attempting to determine the cause of the accident. |
I was pretty sure you didn't. But you brought up the use of the scientific method, not me.
The cause of the accident actually is known. Why the passengers weren't wearing or within reach of lifejackets is unknown. Why the captain did not see the fishing nets is unknown. Why he felt it was acceptable to hand in a fraudulent manifest despite a supposed "crackdown" on safety is unknown.
You keep asking for objective criteria to measure if an accident is a result of culture.
You probably can't answer it objectively because culture is subjective. It is also not a monolithic construct. Culture has many aspects to it. K-pop, hangul, and bulgogi are in no way related to safety, for example.
So, I would determine if culture were partly responsible by looking for trends. Threads and themes that continue to surface.
To that end, I (and others) have already summed up why we feel that some aspects of Korean culture are responsible either for an accident happening (Sewol) or higher than necessary death tolls.
So, I would point to instances where the Korean government has vowed change - and then didn't.
You could point to other countries that have solved similar problems, and therefore exist as a working model of a solution, but were ignored/not consulted by Korea.
You could point to a lack of legislation. You could point to a lack of enforcement of existing regulations. You could point to inaction despite statistical evidence that some action needs to be taken.
For example, despite Korea consistently ranking near or at the top of traffic accident fatalities for many years, it was only this year that it was finally made mandatory for rear-seat passengers in a car to wear a seatbelt. Why did it take so long? And why do you even need to have a high traffic fatality rate to act? What were they thinking - "I'm not convinced on this seatbelt thing. Let's try it for the front passengers first"? The data exists from what has happened in other countries - you are more likely to survive a car accident if you are buckled up. Period. Korea finally got around to legislating that everyone in the car be buckled this year - in 2015! Why the delay?
Last edited by Fuzzy_Dunlop on Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:47 am; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SR, do you believe in Culture? Meaning, that there are different cultures from one country/area to another? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ite Korea consistently ranking near or at the top of traffic accident fatalities for many years, it was only this year that it was finally made mandatory for rear-seat passengers in a car to wear a seatbelt. Why did it take so long? And why do you even need to have a high traffic fatality rate to act? What were they thinking - "I'm not convinced on this seatbelt thing. Let's try it for the front passengers first"? The data exists from what has happened in other countries - you are more likely to survive a car accident if you are buckled up. Period. Korea finally got around to legislating that everyone in the car be buckled this year - in 2015! Why the delay? |
yeah, why the delay? Because apologists and defenders don't really care about Korean lives. What really matters is not letting "outsiders" criticize this place. Rant after rant about Dokdo, commercials on the Subway trains and posters on the sides of buses...that's the important stuff. A massive campaign to drive safely, creating a culture of safety, no it's much easier to spend one's time hating on Japan and foreigners on the internet who complain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coltronator
Joined: 04 Dec 2013
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fixed it for you.
Yeah, why the delay in legislation? Because Muricans and defenders don't really care about people's lives. What really matters is not letting "outsiders" criticize the place. Rant after rant about state's rights, commercials on the Subway trains and posters on the sides of buses...that's the important stuff. A massive campaign to improve safety, creating a culture of safety, no it's much easier to spend one's time hating on foreigners in their hate groups who complain.
I seriously don't care. Korea is so much safer in in A,B and K that the fact that G and H are more dangerous makes it a wash. I care more about he fact that people earlier in this thread and now you again were being arrogant Muricabags. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| postfundie wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ite Korea consistently ranking near or at the top of traffic accident fatalities for many years, it was only this year that it was finally made mandatory for rear-seat passengers in a car to wear a seatbelt. Why did it take so long? And why do you even need to have a high traffic fatality rate to act? What were they thinking - "I'm not convinced on this seatbelt thing. Let's try it for the front passengers first"? The data exists from what has happened in other countries - you are more likely to survive a car accident if you are buckled up. Period. Korea finally got around to legislating that everyone in the car be buckled this year - in 2015! Why the delay? |
yeah, why the delay? Because apologists and defenders don't really care about Korean lives. What really matters is not letting "outsiders" criticize this place. Rant after rant about Dokdo, commercials on the Subway trains and posters on the sides of buses...that's the important stuff. A massive campaign to drive safely, creating a culture of safety, no it's much easier to spend one's time hating on Japan and foreigners on the internet who complain. |
(Firing off a quick one, I'll get to the meat of Fuzzy's big post later)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States
Do you guys even bother to consider the possibility that your preconceived notions are wrong and to do a basic fact check?
What "apologists care about" is seeing that the Koreans are treated fairly and that the same standards you would apply to other people are applied to them. They also object to the underlying whiff of bigotry that permeates some of the criticisms of Korea that have been posted on this site.
And, well, there is the whole gun thing. And before someone tries to claim that America somehow isn't representative of western culture, please. It has more people than the rest of the ESL countries combined times something like 2.5 and has been the most dominant cultural force on the planet for the last 100 or so years by a country mile.
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| SR, do you believe in Culture? Meaning, that there are different cultures from one country/area to another? |
I do, however quite often the culture that exists in a given situation is often related to income level or occupation or something else. For example, a fisherman from the Philippines and Korea may have much more in common with each other than a university student from Korea and a Korean fisherman. Look at it in practice- Culturally, young people from around the world are more similar than different age groups and people from income levels within Korea. Just walk into Hongdae and two groups of young people who don't even speak the same language can get along and understand each other much better than a group of fishermen and a group of young people in Hongdae. Their behaviors and lifestyles are far more similar, even with the difference in nationality. There are so many (sub)cultures that operate simultaneously that often nationality is really over-simplifying things.
Also, without objective standards for determining whether culture truly played a role in an event, it is VERY dangerous to use it as an explanation. In some ways, and in some cases, I think culture is essentially used to mask prejudiced sentiment. When people say "I hate Korean culture" and go on a particularly invective filled diatribe, its clear they mean "I hate Korean people" and just don't want to seem like a bigot. However, that doesn't mean that culture never applies. Certainly, as Fox noted, going out as a teaching staff and getting bombed IS Korean culture. And of course trends do reflect culture generally, such as the suicide rate. HOWEVER, care must be taken to differentiate between the general and the specific. Cultural indicators in the general must be very carefully applied to the specific and there should be clear and compelling direct evidence that culture was at fault and overwhelmingly so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you agree that not only are their cultural differences... there are subcultural differences - and by your statement, certain groups or professions an also have certain cultural traits (i.e. - fishermen).
You seem to be saying you don't feel that ppl here take enough care in applying that cultural label, if I'm reading you correctly.
I'll ask then - did you take care in replying to me? You argued about the phone call and delay, and how it's not "only Korean"... yet I never once said that. I even asked you to quote me where I said it - and keep in mind, it was ME who brought that phone call point numerous times into this thread. Hell, I even brought news links... yet you made a straw man about "only Korean", and dismissed the news links.
So honestly, I feel you didn't take any care when replying to my post... simply wanted to argue. And if you don't take care and consideration in your posting, why the F should others? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lunar Groove Gardener
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Location: 1987 Subaru
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clearly the unnecessary loss of life here was due in some part to a lack of standard daily practices, properly maintained equipment, emergency protocols and procedures, and crew and captain training which save lives when ships sink elsewhere.
One can point at places where practices are more dangerous than here and there are no safety procedures and your captain is an illiterate 10 year old barefoot boy with a broken toe.
Another can argue against adapting the American/European model of regulation, training and inspection.
Systemic changes could have been made to reduce the tragic loss of life in this instance and they were not.
The path to improved passenger safety is to follow successful models from cultures where safety is the first priority and primary responsibility of any ship's captain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
