If You Say Something Often Enough, That Does Not Make It True

Enough already with the "Chinese term for crisis comprises of two words: danger and opportunity."
I recommend the New York Times to my students but stuff like this makes me wonder, "Where have the editors gone?" All those layers of fact-checkers...

Saying the "Chinese term for crisis comprises of two words: danger and opportunity" is a like saying "the English term understand is comprised of two words, under and stand, meaning if you understand something, you have something to stand on solidly, but there are still new things to learn above you." Or some other silliness.

The Chinese term for crisis truly is composed of two characters. One is associated with the idea of danger, among other things. The other is associated with the idea of chance or crucial point. Not opportunity per se.

It just so happens that since the idea of "crisis" and "opportunity" both share in the idea of "crucial point," both two-character words share one character. That's it. No deep meaning here.

Wanna play this game with other Chinese characters?

• "The Chinese term for common cold comprises of two words: feel and careless. See the ancient wisdom! You can catch a cold from being careless!"
• "The Chinese term for economy comprises of two words: to manage and to cross a river. See the ancient wisdom! You can't grow an economy without innovation!"
• "The Chinese term for invest comprises of two words: to throw and expenses. See the ancient wisdom! The fees of a good mutual fund manager are justified!"

Worst of all, the author of this article is a professor at MIT. Of international management. Ugh.