RoR: Forum

John,
Thanks for posting Lisa VanDamme's video.

Post 101

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 9:10am

John,

So, you would force your child to continue playing football, even though he decided that he didn't like it. Wow!

Paraphasing "The Who," Meet the Chinese Father; same as the Chinese Mother!

Post 102

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 9:19am

So let me get this straight, you would spoil the child, cater to their every whim, and teach them that should daily short-term frustrations come your way it's better to quit, give up and walk away, and back out of the commitments you make to other people (like a part in a school play and a game about to come up where you are counted on to show up)

Now that is a wow!

You'd want us all to raise a bunch of short attention span snotty brats with no sense of responsibility to the choices they make!

Again, for some reason you think children are just innately born with these virtues. They are not, they must be taught. And if a parent would raise their child in the manner you propose we'd have a society full of criminals.

(Edited by John Armaos on 1/18, 9:24am)

Post 103

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 9:41am

By the way, I said I find some of the things Chua does/has done to her children are deplorable. Giving them no choice in the activities they want to partake in, giving them no unstructured 'play time', and berating a child I especially find absolutely deplorable.

So how do I deserve the label here of being a 'Chinese Father'?

Post 104

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 9:47am

John,
Children will learn early on that they won't be able to continue doing what they want to do if they don't get past the "short-term frustrations". If a child doesn't show up for a football game or a school play (activities banned by Chua, by the way), he won't be able to participate in them anymore. This will be tough to take if he really wants to do it. But this lesson will be learned long before he gets to the football/school play stage.

Now, unless you think that children are naturally disinclined to any enjoyable activity that requires effort (a hard thing to prove, because it's not true), they are going to learn that they have to work to do anything that they enjoy. And this is a life lesson they will learn on their own, not because a parent forced them to continue doing something they didn't want to do.
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 105

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 9:48am

I will let Bill speak for himself regarding what he actually means. My interpretation of his posts involved careful deliberations about how much a child can have on his "plate" at any given time. New opportunities arise of greater value that need to displace current ones of lesser value. So, in a careful manner respectful of existing commitments to self and others, a child needs to learn how to arrange his affairs for maximum long range value.

I am undergoing this exercise now. I have been a member of Toastmasters since 1999. I originally set a goal of Distinguished Toastmaster (DTM) when I joined, the highest rank a Toastmaster can achieve. Over time, though, I realized that my actual goal was just to become a reasonably competent communicator and leader. After recently earning my Advanced Communicator Silver (ACS), the halfway mark to DTM, I finally had to admit to myself that I already got what I intended to get from the organization. To do more would be to do less. So I announced to my club in a timely fashion that I intended to complete my current term in an officer position and planned not to renew my membership. Someone asked me what I planned to do with the newly freed time. "Watch NCIS: Los Angeles with my wife on the couch," I responded honestly. At this stage in my life, that activity provides more value than does Toastmasters.

Likewise, I also quit my membership in a local karate dojo in a similar way for similar reasons.

Life is precious. Time is life. Therefore, time is precious. I have no intention of squandering one precious moment. I would not want to force any child to do it, either.

In managerial economics, there is a concept called "marginal revenue equals marginal cost" or MR=MC. This is the intersection point between the respective curves where the firm can maximize total profit. To do more or less would lessen total benefit. Life efforts follow much the same pattern. Those efforts do not need to be "excellent" or "poor" but simply "adequate" to maximize positive life experiences.

Post 106

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:00am

Luke I don't disagree with you. Long-term plans can be altered to better reflect what you desire and new information can come up that requires a re-examination of those goals. I don't doubt that and I've certainly done that myself.

However what I'm talking about is going the complete opposite extreme where a child (I know I haven't raised any but I've on occasion taken care of my nieces and you see first hand just how fickle a child can be) will not commit to anything for any length of time because they don't value putting in the hard-work that is required before realizing a goal.

Glenn, I don't agree that a child will learn this lesson on their own. A child would be shielded from the consequences of backing out of a play or a sport's team half-way through the season. No one would call the child up and yell at them for backing out of the commitment, the child would not understand there is a cost to burning bridges, nor would the child understand or ever learn that taking on an activity requires deliberation and serious thought before whimsically deciding to do it, nor would they ever understand to think beyond the short-term. But when would the child learn this? When he becomes an adult and is no longer shielded from the consequences of their actions, a point in their life that is probably far too late.

(Edited by John Armaos on 1/18, 10:01am)

Post 107

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:06am

Too many give their kids the puppy they said they wanted and would take care of - and ended up taking care of it themselves...

Post 108

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:10am

Robert thank you for summing up the sentiment so succinctly.

Post 109

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:21am

Robert observed:

Too many give their kids the puppy they said they wanted and would take care of - and ended up taking care of it themselves.

Too many spouses give their spouses the children they said they wanted and end by caring for those children themselves.

Too many parents give their parents the grandchildren they said they wanted only to dump those grandchildren into the laps of their grandparents to raise the grandchildren themselves.

Regarding Robert's puppy example, if it were legal, one cure would be to force the child to watch the puppy get shot in exchange for the freedom from caring for it. Since that is normally illegal, another option would be to force the child watch the parent donate the dog back to the shelter with the expectation that the shelter will "euthanize" it due to lack of funds. Either way would inflict the sting of neglect onto the child.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/18, 10:22am)

Post 110

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:24am

Luke;

"Too many spouses give their spouses the children they said they wanted and end by caring for those children themselves."

Maybe those spouses were raised with Bill's standards of parenting?

"Since that is normally illegal, another option would be to force the child watch the parent donate the dog back to the shelter with the expectation that the shelter will "euthanize" it due to lack of funds"

I like that better. You are at least no longer shielding a child from the consequences of their actions.

If it was something like taking up guitar and the child after one lesson wants to quit, I'd at least try to make the child do some chores or as my dad did, work at his business to teach the child he should pay back the money spent on buying the instrument and enrolling them in lessons. Something to make the child weigh the consequences of making a choice. But this isn't always practical. At some point you are forcing your child to do something to realize the consequences of their actions.

(Edited by John Armaos on 1/18, 11:41am)

Post 111

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 11:21am

Bill wrote:

Of course, while a child is under the parents control, he or she cannot be allowed to make demonstrably unwise or harmful choices, like taking drugs or engaging in risky or irresponsible sexual behavior, but a child should be permitted the freedom to choose among perfectly acceptable alternatives, like which musical instrument to play, whether or not to act in a school play or which sport to try out for. It is in these kinds of choices that the child's individuality should be upheld and respected.

This sounds perfectly reasonable to me. But what I don't see here is forcing the child to even take on any kind of educational or learning activity. Would you also include as a harmful or unwise choice the wish of the child to stay home and never go to school?

Post 112

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 4:39pm

I wrote, "Of course, while a child is under the parents control, he or she cannot be allowed to make demonstrably unwise or harmful choices, like taking drugs or engaging in risky or irresponsible sexual behavior, but a child should be permitted the freedom to choose among perfectly acceptable alternatives, like which musical instrument to play, whether or not to act in a school play or which sport to try out for. It is in these kinds of choices that the child's individuality should be upheld and respected."

John replied,

This sounds perfectly reasonable to me. But what I don't see here is forcing the child to even take on any kind of educational or learning activity. Would you also include as a harmful or unwise choice the wish of the child to stay home and never go to school?

Of course, assuming that the school is relatively safe and that the child is not in constant fear of being bullied or attacked. I once knew a guy who was the only white student at a Brooklyn High School back in the '60s. He said that he stayed home 52 straight days out of fear for his very life. If I were the parent, I certainly wouldn't force him to attend school under those circumstances. The existing laws which do compel attendance at such schools are a travesty.

But the important point here is that there are certain activities that are optional and certain ones that are not. Under normal circumstances, attending school is not optional. I would certainly require my child to attend.

Whether or not to play football is optional. A child may think he would enjoy the game until he actually tries it and discovers that it was not as much fun as he thought. He should certainly have the option of discontinuing the activity if he decides he doesn't like it. The same is true of other extracurricular activities. Childhood is a time for exploration. A child should be free to try different recreational activities in order to discover which one(s) he likes best.

I am well aware that modern parenting can often be too permissive, but I'm 70 years old and grew up in a different era. Parents were far stricter when I was a child than they are today, and I can tell you that none of my childhood friends were ever coerced into playing a particular sport or learning a musical instrument. Had they been, it would have been considered an outrage.

I know that you are not as extreme as Ms. Chua (she's off the charts), but your willingness to coerce your child into continuing an optional activity simply because he or she decided to try it out is in the same category as the kind of stuff she was imposing on her own daughters.

Given your views on this issue, I'm astonished that you posted the Lisa VanDamme video, since she expresses a view that is diametrically opposed to yours.

Post 113

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 5:11pm

I posted the video because Teresa asked me to. I think she was having some technical issues with it. Like I said before I find some value in some of the things Chua says, while other things I don't. I don't think the way Western parents today typically raise their children to cater to their every whim and spoil them is particularly healthy either. I think kids are being raised to be lazy, narcissistic spoiled brats. I don't like either approach, Chua's or the current typical Western parenting as of the past 30 years.

But I'm a little confused here Bill, you would force your child to go to school (assuming he wasn't in physical danger) but you would criticize Hong and myself for forcing a child to stick with an extracurricular activity, at least for some specified length of time (a season for example)? This strikes me as an inconsistent position. Why would you force your kid to go learn math but not force them to practice their instrument? I don't think philosophically we differ all that much here but I'm just confused on how you are applying the concretes.

Post 114

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:46pm

John,

As I said in my previous post, certain activities are optional and certain ones are not. Under normal circumstances, attending school and learning math, etc. are not optional, whereas participating in a particular sport like football, acting in a school play or performing some other extracurricular activity is optional. What is it about this that you find to be unclear? An optional activity should be up to the child. He should be free to experiment with different games or other activities in order to see if he'd be interested in pursuing them.

He may think he would enjoy a game until he actually tries it and discovers that it was not as much fun as he thought. He should certainly have the option of discontinuing the activity if he decides he doesn't like it. As I said before, childhood is a time for exploration. A child should be free to try different (optional) activities in order to discover which he likes and which he doesn't.

If he thinks that he doesn't have the option of quitting something that he starts, how inclined do you think he's going to be to experiment and investigate? How eager will he be to stick his neck out, knowing that if he makes a wrong choice, he's stuck with it? How willing would you be to start a business in a state or a country that doesn't allow you to quit, take your profits and leave? If you want your child to discover which activities are the most enjoyable for him, you have to allow him the option of trying different things until he finds what he really likes. You can't tie him down to the first thing he tries and force him to stick to it. If you do, he may never discover what he's really good at -- what best suits his talents and interests.

Post 115

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 5:39am

Bill, I don't really understand why you're not getting what I'm saying, I think what I'm arguing here is quite simple.

As I said in my previous post, certain activities are optional and certain ones are not. Under normal circumstances, attending school and learning math, etc. are not optional, whereas participating in a particular sport like football, acting in a school play or performing some other extracurricular activity is optional.

I don't dispute what you are saying here. If you are saying there are some essentials like forcing the child to go to school and learn math, and other things like the particular extracurricular activity the child chooses, is a non-essential (to a certain extent, the activity must be at least be a life-affirming value). Which is exactly what I've been saying several times now.

But now I am discussing a different aspect of taking on these activities, a particular essential that I believe must be taught, and that is committing to an activity, not to an eternity Bill, but for some reasonable specified length of time before some payoff is realized before really understanding if the child likes the activity or not "try it for at least 6 months" "Play it out for at least the season, you made promises to your teammates you'd show up for the game" "I know the guitar is hard, but it's just your first lesson, keep at it until at least you start learning a few songs, you might learn to like it" "At least stick with theater until you do your part in the play and the performance is done, then don't do theater anymore if you really don't like"

He may think he would enjoy a game until he actually tries it and discovers that it was not as much fun as he thought.

How would the child ever know if he doesn't like it if he is never taught that it takes a little time before you can realize you enjoy doing something? Let alone how would a child know he would want to do anything unless you forced the child to even make a choice for doing an extracurricular activity in the first place? Do you know what kids are really like? They usually don't want to do shit and would rather stay home and play videogames all day. Would you as a father be fine with your kid doing that? What about any of this is unclear to you Bill? Kids naturally start out never wanting to be pushed or to push themselves out of any comfort zone.

If he thinks that he doesn't have the option of quitting something that he starts, how inclined do you think he's going to be to experiment and investigate?

Good point. So clearly there are two extremes, making the child commit to too long a period of time, even beyond the point of where one should start realizing some enjoyable payoffs by getting over the initial difficulties of learning a new activity, and the other extreme, allowing the child to give up too early just because there might me some initial difficulties to learning a new activity, or backing out of commitments made to other people and burning bridges.

(Edited by John Armaos on 1/19, 5:44am)

Post 116

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 5:45am

David Brooks has an interesting opinion piece (somewhat tongue in cheek) in the NYT entitled "Amy Chua is a Wimp". Here's a quote from it:

Practicing a piece of music for four hours requires focused attention, but it is nowhere near as cognitively demanding as a sleepover with 14-year-old girls. Managing status rivalries, negotiating group dynamics, understanding social norms, navigating the distinction between self and group � these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense tutoring session or a class at Yale.

Post 117

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 5:55am

John said:

Kids naturally start out never wanting to be pushed or to push themselves out of any comfort zone.

If you believe that, John, then I can now understand the basis for your arguments on this point. However, this statement contradicts everything I personally have observed in kids and most of what I have read about them. If this is your belief, then fine. But, if you have anything to back it up, I'd love to hear about it.
Thanks,
Glenn

(Edited by Glenn Fletcher on 1/19, 5:56am)

Post 118

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 6:08am

Glenn:

If you believe that, John, then I can now understand the basis for your arguments on this point. However, this statement contradicts everything I personally have observed in kids and most of what I have read about them.

Not so for me Glenn, it seems what I have observed is the complete opposite of what you have observed.

If this is your belief, then fine. But, if you have anything to back it up, I'd love to hear about it.

Other than what I've come to observe myself, in my own child-hood experiences and those that I see in my nieces and nephew, no. Do you have anything to back up your observations?

(Edited by John Armaos on 1/19, 6:31am)

Post 119

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 6:35am