The important is not what changes but what remains constant.

Really? Wouldn't a better argument be that Americans have experienced constant positive social progress and stability, which reinforces the American mindset that "change is good". Whereas China has undergone nearly two centuries of instability, reinforcing the mindset that "stability is more important than pursuit of an ideal"?

I still don't even think that this is a super useful model because it is also reductive. But my point is just that you shouldn't paint broad brush strokes with bad history to find a reason for something. It's actually counter-productive. You can find post-hoc rationalization for anything. It doesn't make you right.

It is not this simple and you missed my point (I can't blame you).

It is about personal traits after all. The question is, what personal trait remains constant under the change?

As you can see from the above: Chinese and American students reacted very differently to a change (a difficult study exercise).

In principle this contradicts your claim that Americans embrace any change - not at all.

Why different groups of people react differently to the change applied to them? It can be that they have different cultural memory about what is the outcome of a personal stand.

I get your point, but your entire point is just built on speculation.

> As you can see from the above: Chinese and American students reacted very differently to a change (a difficult study exercise).

This is one framing. Another framing is that they have deference to authority. My hypothesis from the last post is not testable, it's just a narrative. It's not true. That was my point. You can frame history in whatever narrative makes you feel good but it's not scientific or true.

> Why different groups of people react differently to the change applied to them? It can be that they have different cultural memory about what is the outcome of a personal stand.

Your average Chinese student is more likely to have immediate family members who participated in revolutionary activity than just "being rice farmers". Whereas your average American is not very likely to have ancestors who participated in revolutionary activity (much less cowboys or adventurers). I am trying to illustrate that your initial assumption (Americans are always pushing boundaries, and the Chinese just live quiet lives) is totally inaccurate when taking into account which of the two countries has had more instability over the last two centuries. So in the "cultural memory" wouldn't Americans be the ones who are used to peaceful and stable lives?

Your point fails on another level, which is that both the rice farmer and cowboy example are stereotypes that serve to find an example without any serious analysis. It's a nice hand-wavy explanation that doesn't pass a quick smell test an also doesn't encourage the people who buy into the explanation to investigate any further.

I am saying that just because this explanation makes sense to you doesn't mean that it is correct.

> Your average Chinese student is more likely to have immediate family members who participated in revolutionary activity than just "being rice farmers"

I think you are misinterpreting the situation.

I didn't come up with this rice farmer and cowboy example and I do not advocate for it as it is a complete nonsense. Cowboys aka cow herders were just one very limited part of the American society, it misses everybody else who were free in their lives.

Chinese communist regime (as it has been with all communist regimes) first deceived the population with good sounding promises and then created another oppressive regime. Chinese peasants didn't push personal boundaries, it was a collective action where they stepped right into one of the biggest blunders of the century that led to the death of tens of millions people (close to 100 million). "Cultural" revolution displayed to them that they have to learn to walk on the rope or else. They went from one serfdom right into another one.

What you have constructed here is called a straw man argument.

> I didn't come up with this rice farmer and cowboy example and I do not advocate for it as it is a complete nonsense

Sorry my bad, I thought you were the same person as the original commenter I was replying to.

I'm the original one and I agree with the previous comment wholeheartedly.

Revolution is when you are told you have much meaner boss from now on, and one who requires active loyalty signalling. So you comply. Or remove yourself from the gene pool.