RoR: Forum

Steve,

I find it silly that you want to dwell on the least significant detail of an minor example of an argument in such a way to totally avoid the actual issue: Are Asians are capable of significant innovation?

As an Objectivist, I cannot allow myself to accept conclusions without evidence-based reasoning. Part of the evidence upon which your reasoning was based was the evidence of a differential in the quality of produced cars. I'm not avoiding the issue of whether Asians are more innovative than Americans are -- I'm demanding that evidence be brought forth for any conclusion on that matter.

Ed

Post 41

Thursday, January 13, 2011 - 7:16pm

Ed, you wrote, "I cannot allow myself to accept conclusions without evidence-based reasoning."

Well, okay, then let's look at your stated conclusions in this thread and see if they suit that statement or the style of presentation that statement would imply.
-----------

You wrote, "In England, snide comments are thrown around because of quiet desperation. So, what you get is a bunch of people making fun of each other because they are not in a position to better their own lives. If I had the hopeless sense of angst that they do, I'd sit around and sarcastically tease my friends and family, too (either that or I'd take up the hobby of hurting small insects). They don't just have thick skin, they have walls and walls of defense and isolation. These people are withering and dying in psychological foxholes."

Where is the evidence for that?

Talking about Italy, You wrote, "It's a country populated by 3 year olds."

Where is the evidence for that?

You wrote, "Japanese, being descendents from both the Koreans and the ancient Ianu, may carry the culture or genome required for their differential rates of suicide."

There is a suicide gene? Really? Where is the evidence for that?

You wrote, "It's hard to find good American women (which supports Steve's hypothesis)"

What hypothesis? Where is the evidence that it is hard to find good American women?

You wrote, "Everything (bad) is because of Kant."

I assume that is hyperbole and that you don't expect me to ask you for evidence.
--------------

Mostly I just notice that you aren't addressing the heart of the discussion. The rest of this squabble isn't interesting to me and please feel free to not provide any evidence - feel free to treat my questions as rhetorical.

Post 42

Thursday, January 13, 2011 - 7:25pm

Steve:

I totally get your point. Where we seem to disagree is that I think that a general strategy of "Chinese mother" upbringing across a whole spectrum of childhood abilities might not be prudent. In the cited case, this was successful but in a broader application with less talented children it could be borderline child abuse.

We worked right through dinner into the night, and I wouldn't let Lulu get up, not for water, not even to go to the bathroom. The house became a war zone, and I lost my voice yelling, but still there seemed to be only negative progress, and even I began to have doubts.

This brings to mind an incident when I was in grade two. The teacher (Miss Hayes) had us read the instructions from our text that told us to make two columns in our workbook with titles, "At School" and "At the Seashore," which we did. Then there was a list of items such as, "Ruler, Bucket, Pen, Umbrella" and so on. We were to enter the items in the relevant columns. As simple as this is, I and and about three others just didn't get the concept. We were kept after school for about an hour sitting at our desks with a little puddle beneath each of us. It wouldn't have mattered if we had stayed there overnight, we still wouldn't have got it. Of course my mother was furious when I told her why I was late.

Sam

Post 43

Thursday, January 13, 2011 - 7:52pm

Sam,

It would be easy to abuse that "Chinese Mother" approach - we agree on that.

But neglect is also a form of child abuse, so parents that don't give a damn, or are too wrapped up in their own problems, or are too insecure or timid to be the adult can be abusing their child by not giving needed motivation.

That teacher that kept students in their seats when they needed to use the bathroom should have been fired. To be a teacher means being able to see where each student is stuck and make good guesses as to why they are stuck... then they can find the best approach to get the individual unstuck. That Mom knew her daughter well enough to do that.

She was successful not only in the specific lessons (different levels: one being the piano piece, one being listening to her mother, one being persistence, etc.) But you and I would agree that some of the values in her culture are NOT the ones we would tout. What gets a child to success in adulthood, in so far as parenting is concerned, is a complex process of many levels. The different tactics and techniques and principles all need to mesh to some degree. I look at different Asian cultures and I can see how different parts fit together and I can see some parts I don't agree with, but that the overall approach is yielding a lot of success. Chinese-Americans are having a great deal of success while other sub-cultures in our country are not.

Post 44

Thursday, January 13, 2011 - 11:34pm

Steve,

Ed, you wrote, "I cannot allow myself to accept conclusions without evidence-based reasoning."

Well, okay, then let's look at your stated conclusions in this thread ...

I won't get into such mud-slinging. You and I (and the others) are talking about groups of people where little can be said without qualified generalization. Even the statement: "Everybody of that particular race/culture over there is different from everybody else inside that same race/culture" -- even that statement -- is a generalization. I heavily-qualified the things I said. I mentioned overtly that I was working off of personal experiences.

I took exception when you said that American's as a whole are less innovative and more thin-skinned (than some people who live somewhere else). You cited some evidence for that generalization. I criticized some of the evidence you cited. From where I sit it appeared to me as if you were glorifying another race/culture. I said that that's what I think. I didn't say I know it or I can prove it, it's just what I think.

We have a differing opinion. We can attempt to persuade each other by (1) bringing evidence together and then (2) integrating it. You haven't persuaded me of your opinion and that is not the end of the world (or good reason for a flame war). On the issue of this thread, my mother was the opposite of a Chinese Mother and I have some regrets about that.

I had too much "love." Too much "love" is like having too many friends -- it never turns out well (no matter how well-intentioned). You can only be a really good friend to a select few people. A friend of everyone is a (true) friend of no one. And, in different ways, optimal love mirrors those kinds of limitations (optimal love is conditional love).

Even still, I disagree with the idea of parenting from all the way over to the opposite side of the spectrum -- like a drill sargeant viewing your child like a soldier. It is not important, it can even be dangerous, to promote individualism in a soldier. Chinese Mothers who do not promote individualism are mothering wrong. I'm not saying they all do that, I'm just talking about the drill-sargeant types as tough or perhaps even tougher than Amy Chua.

I just watched "Meet the Spartans" (comedy spoof about the movie: "300"). The parents in that movie kicked the shit out of their kids (the father is shown repeatedly ramming the child's head into the dirt) -- because what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I should add it makes for a stronger soldier. These parents expected nothing but physical excellence from their kids. It may be a comedy, but the original movie isn't that much better. Physical excellence, physical excellence, physical excellence. Okay. But what about when physical excellence isn't needed, what do children need then?

Amy Chua's answer:
Piano and violin.

According to Amy Chua, these ancient Spartans were wrong to be so tough on their kids, but not because being tough is wrong -- they just got their priorities screwed up. We live in different times now. Kids don't need fighting rammed into their heads, they need violin. Kids are born with an intrinsic deficiency of violin in their lives. That is the quasi-collectivist gamble that Amy Chua is willing to take with her kids' lives. Recall that collectivisms are systems claiming to have the answers for everyone.

Now, you could retort that any conscious gamble is better than indifference -- and you'd be right as far as that goes -- but if there isn't room for individuality, then all of the tough-guy, drill-sargeant routine is not just a waste, but counterproductive. You don't get a second chance with kids. You don't get to "experiment" with things without consequence.

Let's say that there was another mother who was really very adamant about her children excelling in the promotion of communism (or environmentalism). In third grade, they cannot go to bed (or eat supper) until they have written a 300-word essay on the merits of communism or environmentalism. In sixth grade, they have got to get a letter-to-the-editor published in a left-wing newspaper in order to be included in the planned family vacation. It's all in the child's best interest, the mother may say.

What is different between this woman's parenting and that of Amy Chua? They both work really, really hard to instill a certain kind of a value in their kids.

They both miss out, terribly, on the idea of individualism.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/13, 11:42pm)

Post 45

Thursday, January 13, 2011 - 11:53pm

Ed,

You claim that I said, "American's as a whole are less innovative and more thin-skinned (than some people who live somewhere else)."

Not true. I think Americans are extremely innovative. How many times do I have to remind you that what I was saying is that Asians are also innovative. Americans are more thin-skinned than some other cultures - sometimes they get themselves all worked up into a fine snit if you say they are thin-skinned.

And I wasn't glorifying another race/culture - I was pointing out that some other cultures are not as thin-skinned and that other cultures are innovative. There is a difference.

You think that Amy Chua's approach is anti-Individualism and I see no evidence of that. I have no more to say on this.

Post 46

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 12:27am

In Post 39, Steve wrote,

The same situation faced by another child might result in a totally different attitude. In both cases it might be the parent supplying the stress, but it is the parents job to make the tough call as to how to keep on insisting. They can't give up and say, in effect, okay, Lulu, you don't have to learn math. In that article she read her daughter correctly and taught the real lesson which was not a piece of music, but that excellence is achievable and you can persist and get there.

Of course, children have to learn basic educational skills like math and English, etc. They don't have to learn to play a musical instrument like the piano or violin, which is something that should be optional.

Part of raising kids to become fully functional adults is to teach them how to make their own decisions and choose their own goals. If you don�t do that, you�ve failed as a parent in one very important respect. It�s not enough to make them excellent musicians or straight-A students.

And did you notice how she wanted her children to be #1 in their class, as though this were a reasonable goal for all parents and all students? It reminded me of the mercantilist notion (heavily promoted by China incidentally) that a country's exports should exceed its imports. But if one country�s exports exceed imports, then for another country, imports must exceed exports. You can�t generalize such a policy, just as you cannot generalize the goal of every student's being the best in his or her class.

Post 47

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 5:38am

Bill, I want to add to your Post 46. I know I keep harping on my experience at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics (NCSSM) 1982-84 but it bears relevance here. The school is touted as "A School for Excellence" where students can "Accept the Greater Challenge." The latter phrase is even inscribed in Latin, the dead language, as "Maius Opus Moveo" on various school publications. (For humor, I literally "explode" that statement in this video.)

What I learned that is that while that is all fine and well, it is definitely not the "main thing" in life. Neither there nor in college did I receive a single formal hour of training in personal finance, for example. In fact, I contend that NCSSM is run by administrators with their own agendas that place student "life" success (not just "academic" success) low or totally absent on those agendas. I say this despite the courses in "Student Life" required both years since they focus mainly on political hot buttons like sex and substance abuse at the expense of the more fundamental issue of how to manage cash flow.

As I have said elsewhere on this site, I was shocked at the number of classmates at my 25th reunion who never finished college, much less cultivated careers in science or mathematics. This was "supposed" to be the original goal of the school when it formed in 1980. Most of them were at least self-sustaining though I did learn through Facebook of a classmate who found himself, his wife, and his four children evicted from their rental trailer for failure to pay. Bah!

Regarding the playing of an instrument, Montessori advanced a theory of "sensitive periods" in child neural development that needed musical stimulation to cultivate natural musical abilities. Science seems to support this. So I can sympathize with parental prodding of that development though not to the point of hounding. Of course, if the parents miss the boat on that one, there is no point in trying to repair the damage later.

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." -- Lazarus Long

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/14, 5:46am)

Post 48

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 6:59am

Amy Chua is a sick, manipulative, destructive person who's goal is to make her children conform to her image of what a successful person should be. It's not just that they must learn a musical instrument; they must learn the violin and the piano. It's not that they must work hard and do the best they can; they must be the best in the class. (As Bill pointed out, this becomes impossible if there are two students in the class whose mother is a "Chinese mother".) Just look at the list of things her children either must do or must not do. Apparently, acting in a school play doesn't fit her image of what a successful student does.

Hong: You say that you share the same parenting techniques as Chua. Based on your brief post, I would say that your technique is qualitatively different from her technique. You ended by saying that your son "is very much free to pursue his various interests". Do you see this with her children? Not only does she decide what their interests are, she leaves them no time to pursue anything but what she wants them to do.

Steve: I find your pragmatic justification for Chua's parenting technique interesting. Is the fact that she was apparently successful with her daughters (and since they are still young, the jury is still out on that), and that Asian-American parents are producing successful children, a sufficient justification, in your mind, for this method of raising children? If you believe so, then perhaps you should look at the statistics I gave in my post #13, and do a Google search to find that the suicide rate among Asian-American women between the ages of 18 and 25 is the highest of any ethnic group. And as for your comment about Chua not being "anti-individualism"; did you not read the article? She said that Lulu should be able to play the piano piece because her older daughter was able to at that age and when her husband pointed out that they are two different people, she blew that off as not being relevant. Her whole approach to her two daughters is that they will learn (A), (B), and (C); no differences or failure allowed. Do you see this as fostering individualism?

Post 49

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 9:45am

I'll have to get back to this thread this weekend. But, meanwhile, any thoughts about the childhood of John Galt? Do objectivist supermen spring fully formed from an environment of benign neglect, their individualism unsuppressed?

Regarding American exceptionalism, most of the engineering companies I've worked for are well represented in the high ranks of engineers and managers by individuals from other countries. Often the best engineers are not born and raised in this country.

Post 50

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 10:05am

Mike wrote:

I'll have to get back to this thread this weekend. But, meanwhile, any thoughts about the childhood of John Galt? Do objectivist supermen spring fully formed from an environment of benign neglect, their individualism unsuppressed?

I think that would make an excellent novel. John Galt could have have arisen from two nurturing parents employing Montessori methods. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan had an alcoholic father. While I doubt the "superman" would arise from neglect, obviously personal choices -- fundamentally the choice of focus versus evasion -- play a pivotal role in character development.

Regarding American exceptionalism, most of the engineering companies I've worked for are well represented in the high ranks of engineers and managers by individuals from other countries. Often the best engineers are not born and raised in this country.

But they apparently come to this country. I have read that while American K-12 schools suck, American universities draw talent from all over the world. I consider that notable.

Post 51

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 12:38pm

Glenn, your opening sentence in post #48 shows that we are so far apart in our understanding that I'll stick with my last sentence in post #45.

Post 52

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 1:06pm

Rush Limbaugh had something to say on this subject today with the argument that the Chicom mothers were creating future members of collectivist organizations and that they will readily follow whatever authority figure comes to the forefront.

btw, is anyone familiar with John Rosemond who has a syndicated column on child rearing? I have always found his approach to be very sensible.

Sam

Post 53

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 1:25pm

I'm looking forward to the day when the Chua daughters are old enough to write their autobiographies.

Post 54

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 1:38pm

Sam,

His columns might have some good advice on specifics, but I'd be very leery of the underlying philosophy.

Here's why:

From the web page you link to:

"you'll find the Parenting by The Book group study program to be the very best of its kind in the Christian market"

"The full program contains a Leader's Guide, either 10 or 20 copies of Parenting by The Book, two scripture-referenced DVD presentations for group showing."

"Parenting by The Book is also the basis of a DVD/CD study program that is already in significant use in churches, schools, and independent parenting study groups all over the USA."

Then, if you follow the link on that page to his latest book, you find this on the fly page:

"Our purpose at Howard Books (publisher) is to:
� Increase faith in the hearts of growing Christians
� Inspire holiness in the lives of believers
� Instill hope in the hearts of struggling people everywhere
Because He�s coming again!"

Then on page 2 of the book the author writes, "A number of years ago, I came to the realization that for all of its pretenses to scientific objectivity, post-1960s psychology is a secular religion that one believes in by faith. I had been slowly losing that false faith since the early 1980s,
but I lost the last vestige seven years ago, when I submitted my life to Jesus Christ. One of my purposes in writing this book is to help you lose your faith in psychology too."

Post 55

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 1:49pm

There are some excellent books out on child psychology from the old master, Haim Ginott:

Between Parent and Child

He also wrote "Between Parent and Teenager" and "Between Teacher and Child".

He taught several mothers his techniques and principles over a period of a number of years in parenting classes. Two of them went on to be child therapists and wrote some excellent books:

How to Talk so Kids will Listen, and Listen so that Kids will Talk by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish - Excellent book for practical application!

They also wrote several other books (one on sibliing rivalry, one on teens, and some others.)

The other source I'd recommend to any one interested in parenting or teaching children is Nathaniel Branden's Six Pillars of Self-Esteem where he devotes about 60 pages specifically on children - half to parenting and half to teaching children.

Post 56

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 2:20pm

Peter Reidy wrote:

I'm looking forward to the day when the Chua daughters are old enough to write their autobiographies.

I would call it:

Mommie Dearest Part Deux

Post 57

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 2:53pm

http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/01/13/the-tiger-mother-responds-to-readers/

Post 58

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 3:19pm

Thanks, Robert.

That reply by the author is excellent. It answers many of the issues raised in this thread.

It points out that this was an excerpt from a book and talks about her using tongue-in-cheek and that she did not, and would not, have chosen that title.

Post 59

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 3:50pm