RoR: Forum

For those who enjoyed Lisa VanDamme's video response to Amy Chua, here's the sequel. She emphasizes something that runs through this thread: the false dichotomy between Chua's approach and the caricature of the "Western parent's" approach. Enjoy.

Post 121

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 7:54am

On an unrelated note, I read up Chua's bio and saw one of the books she wrote titled "World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability", although I probably shouldn't judge a book by it's title, I wonder how she explains so much ethnic hatred we can observe in the absence of a Free Market Democracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_on_Fire#Criticism

Chua states that she is a "big fan of trying to promote markets and democracy globally," but that it should be accompanied by attempts to "redistribute the wealth

Ha! Where have we heard that before? Hmmm.....

(Edited by John Armaos on 1/19, 7:59am)

Post 122

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 5:52pm

Well, needless to say, my philosophy is completely opposite to that of Lisa VanDamme's.

Last night I watched an episode of "Are you smarter than 5th graders". There's a woman with a Master's degree in Elementary Education (whatever that is) who didn't know if Mississippi flows primarily North-South or West-East...That show was really a horror show.

Fortunately, there are still educators (perhaps not many) who are not like her or Ms VanDamme.

Post 123

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 6:05pm

First of all, I think we should thank Mike Erickson for posting the original article. What a ton of posts and controversy it's generated. Hey Mike, feel free to post anything else you think might be of interest. Sometimes this forum can get a little dull! ;-)

Anyway, to keep this cauldron of controversy simmering, I shall once again reply to my ever worthy opponent John, the body builder and strength athlete. Couldn't resist, John. Couldn't resist! :-)

You wrote,

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" . . .

Well, okay, if you made a promise, a commitment to a team, and your participation is essential it. But before you make such a commitment, you should at least experience the sport to get an idea of what it entails. When I was a kid, my father who had once been boxer, introduced me to the sport. I was initially interested in it, but then I decided that I didn't want to pursue it, because I didn't like getting hit in the face. My father didn't force me to continue, thankfully. Would you? Come on, John! I didn't like it, and I knew exactly why.

The same could be said of football. Suppose your kid discovers that he doesn't like getting tackled and piled on by the other players. Why force him to continue playing the sport for several more months? He doesn't like it. Give him a break, and let him try something else! By contrast, when I was in high school, I joined the wrestling team, and stuck with it for several years and even got a letter in the sport, because I enjoyed it. My parents didn't force to pursue it, nor would they.

"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"

I have nothing against reasoning with your child and making an effort to persuade him to do what you think is desirable. But if you fail to convince him, let him be. It's his life! Why make him miserable?

"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.

Again, if you've gone through the preliminaries, done some acting to know what it's like and made a decision to perform in the play, then you should do what you promised. You owe it to your fellow actors who are depending on you.

I wrote, "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?

Oh, come on! You can know very quickly that you don't like 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?

He can be introduced to it and see other people doing it, which is normally how one decides to pursue an activity; that's certainly how I did. He doesn't need to be forced to make a choice.

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.

I believe I do know what kids are like from firsthand experience; I happened to be one, and my parents never had to force me to engage in extracurricular activities. I chose them myself.

Would you as a father be fine with your kid doing that [playing videogames] all day?

No, I would limit the amount of time he watches television and/or plays video games, just as I would limit the amount of time he spends on any other extracurricular activity. However, what's interesting is that a friend of mine knows a family whose child was raised by a Chinese mother in exactly the same way Amy Chua raised her daughters, and as soon as the child moved away from home, that's all he did -- play video games every spare moment he could.

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.

I don't know what you mean by "never wanting to push themselves out of any comfort zone." Children are typically energetic; they enjoy being active and doing things that interest them. Your assessment of their motivation doesn't jibe with my own personal experience as a child, nor does it reflect what I've observed in other children. Just curious, were you like that as a child -- lacking in energy and motivation? Did you have to be "pushed" out of your "comfort zone"?

(Edited by William Dwyer on 1/19, 6:09pm)

Post 124

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 6:33pm

Bill:

"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?"

Oh, come on! You can know very quickly that you don't like something.

I really can't try to argue with you here because this is just something that one has to experience for oneself. I think there are a lot of times where it isn't clear that you like something until you get over the initial hurdles of learning the 'basics' of a discipline or hobby until you get to the really fun stuff. But I'm not going to try and convince you of that, that's just something you have to experience to understand. When I started playing the bass in high school my first few months of lessons were tedious but once I got beyond the basics it got really fun to play.

He can be introduced to it and see other people doing it, which is normally how one decides to pursue an activity; that's certainly how I did. He doesn't need to be forced to make a choice.

So if he just said hey dad, I'd rather just play videogames, you'd be ok with that? Like I said I'd have no problem letting my child pick a life-affirming activity to do and let him pick which one but I won't tolerate my child picking an anti-life activity like being lazy and playing videogames. And when you say:

"I would limit the amount of time he watches television and/or plays video games"

This means you would force your child to do something other than playing videogames all the time! We're now back to my original position! I'm glad you see it my way Bill! :)

But believe me Bill, have you seen some of these fat slobs in our schools today that whine and cry that they couldn't get the latest Halo videogame to play for 8 hours straight? Believe me they exist, and they are pathetic.

I don't know what you mean by "never wanting to push themselves out of any comfort zone." Children are typically energetic; they enjoy being active and doing things that interest them.

Yes but again, it's not always a life-affirming activity that may catch their interest. Or as I say further below about lacking discipline, it could very well be a life-affirming activity but not handled in a life-affirming way.

Your assessment of their motivation doesn't jibe with my own personal experience as a child, nor does it reflect what I've observed in other children. Just curious, were you like that as a child -- lacking in energy and motivation? Did you have to be "pushed" out of your "comfort zone"?

It's not energy and motivation, it's focus, discipline and persistence. And yeah, just about every single experience I have with children is that the younger they are typically the less focused/disciplined they are, so when something gets a little difficult they tend to want to give up and do something entirely different. Kids that I see that are not taught this lesson tend to have attention deficit disorders and can never complete a task. Even my 50 year old half-sister I think fits this description because I think her mother was way too lenient on her. When I tried to show her how to add the sales tax to a price to get the total (multiply the price by 1.06) her eyes just glazes over and says "oh I'm not good at math". (I work with her) It's usually at that point I pull the hair out of my head. Obviously because she just thought initially math was hard and she didn't want to persist and focus on the material and try to learn it. She was, is undisciplined.

Post 125

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 6:50pm

VanDamme video (7 minutes in):

Getting a good education does not equate with getting good grades in school.

As an educator, I came across this phenomenon. There were these "type-A" students who were very, very adamant about getting an A-grade in my classes. They were concrete-bound, anti-conceptuals -- focusing on the grade, not the material. Focusing on the ends, to the ignorance or outright denial of the means.

I made a mistake as a teacher in that I provided these students with a means to get an A-grade without understanding the material as well as other students who got even a B-grade -- i.e., I gave them the option of extra-credit.

Extra-credit assignments flew in like a swarm of bees. Mindless busy-work assignments, one after the other. These students wouldn't understand the material -- as my simple questioning routinely uncovered -- but they had "heart" and were willing to write anything short of 1000-page novels in order to get that A-grade that they coveted so much. With my mistake, in some small way, I have contributed to some of the accepted mindlessness in this world and -- for that -- I apologize.

I can only hope that, in other ways, I am making up for that mistake by working more personally (with my own writing) to otherwise eradicate the darkness and confusion that we so often face.

Ed

p.s. Thanks for posting the video, Glenn.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/19, 6:52pm)

Post 126

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 10:33pm

I wrote, "He can be introduced to it and see other people doing it, which is normally how one decides to pursue an activity; that's certainly how I did. He doesn't need to be forced to make a choice." John replied,

So if he just said hey dad, I'd rather just play videogames, you'd be ok with that?

No, I wouldn't. I said I'd limit how much time he spends watching TV or playing video games, but I wouldn't force him to choose another activity. And I don't think it would be necessary. If the child is properly introduced to other activities, he'll choose one.

Like I said I'd have no problem letting my child pick a life-affirming activity to do and let him pick which one but I won't tolerate my child picking an anti-life activity like being lazy and playing videogames.

I wouldn't say that playing video games is anti-life, unless that's all you do.

I wrote, "I would limit the amount of time he watches television and/or plays video games"

This means you would force your child to do something other than playing videogames all the time! We're now back to my original position! I'm glad you see it my way Bill! :)

Well, if that's all your saying, fine. But I wouldn't require him to choose among certain other activities. I would certainly require him to spend time on his homework and take care of his health and other non-optional activities. But when it comes to the optional, you have to leave a child free to make his own choices.

I wrote, "Your assessment of their motivation doesn't jibe with my own personal experience as a child, nor does it reflect what I've observed in other children. Just curious, were you like that as a child -- lacking in energy and motivation? Did you have to be "pushed" out of your "comfort zone"?"

It's not energy and motivation, it's focus, discipline and persistence. And yeah, just about every single experience I have with children is that the younger they are typically the less focused/disciplined they are, so when something gets a little difficult they tend to want to give up and do something entirely different. Kids that I see that are not taught this lesson tend to have attention deficit disorders and can never complete a task.

As I said, I would certainly require a child to spend time on his studies and to persevere in mastering them, but I would try to explain to him why learning the material is important, because if he truly understands that, then he will have more of an incentive to master what he is studying. Obviously, very young children need more supervision than older children, but as a child grows, he should be given more of an opportunity to make his own choices and carry them through.

One of the things that Rand was so emphatic about is the damage that the Kantian ethics of duty and obedience has done to people's motivation. You can certainly do something because your parents force you to do it, and perhaps even get good at it, but your behavior in that case will be other-motivated, other-disciplined rather than self-motivated or self-disciplined. I don't think you teach your child self-discipline and self-responsibility by brow-beating and coercing him into doing what you want. All you really do is teach him that if he wants to avoid punishment, he should obey your commands. But in that case, you severe the success of his action from his valuation of it.

Even my 50 year old half-sister I think fits this description because I think her mother was way too lenient on her. When I tried to show her how to add the sales tax to a price to get the total (multiply the price by 1.06) her eyes just glazes over and says "oh I'm not good at math". (I work with her) It's usually at that point I pull the hair out of my head. Obviously because she just thought initially math was hard and she didn't want to persist and focus on the material and try to learn it. She was, is undisciplined.

Let's assume that she failed to learn even something as simple as percentages, because she was not properly raised or properly parented, although I doubt that that's the sole reason for her ignorance. It could also have a lot to do with our current educational system -- the way the material is presented to the students, as something they must learn because it is their duty. Rote learning and memorization can sap a student's motivation. Education becomes a gray, boring duty that one has to plow through in order to regurgitate the material and pass the latest test. Little, if any, attempt is made to explain how learning the subject is useful or valuable. Obviously, many students are able to do well despite having no real understanding of the connection between the material and its practical value, but many of them are not. I'm hesitant to adopt what is very likely a false dichotomy between strict external discipline, on the one hand, and lax, permissive parenting, on the other. As Lisa VanDamme points out, neither is the best approach for raising a happy, productive human being.

Post 127

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 4:22am

On a related note, this new Objectivist blog entry exposes other scary statistics related to teachers.

I tend not to take trivia game shows like "Jeopardy!" and "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?" seriously. If people want to fill their brains with clutter, they can have it. I want no part of it. I prefer spending my time learning useful, integrated knowledge related to my field and my interests, not disintegrated factoids disconnected from my core values and from each other. I also oppose "drinking water from a fire hose" when it comes to learning. See my new blog entry for more on this.

For these reasons, Ed, I totally agree with your Post 125 of this thread and sanctioned it.

I found this thread on another forum contrasting the VanDamme method against others such as Montessori. The thread recommended Leonard Peikoff's lecture series The Philosophy of Education. Has anyone listened to it?

Hong wrote:

Well, needless to say, my philosophy is completely opposite to that of Lisa VanDamme's.

Please share with us how a child raised your way will have a better life than a child raised her way.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/20, 8:00am)

Post 128

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 5:58am

Bill:

As I said, I would certainly require a child to spend time on his studies and to persevere in mastering them, but I would try to explain to him why learning the material is important, because if he truly understands that, then he will have more of an incentive to master what he is studying.

Oh of course! I wouldn't mindlessly tell my child to do something without explaining first why he ought to do it (provided they were old enough to understand the explanation). But sometimes a child will not believe you or listen to you because they haven't experienced first hand why it is important. So again I don't think there is much of a disagreement here. Both of us would require (i.e. force) a child to spend time on his studies, both of us would explain to that child why he ought to, I'm just sticking with the 'require' part if the child remains defiant and doesn't want to do his studies.

I'm hesitant to adopt what is very likely a false dichotomy between strict external discipline, on the one hand, and lax, permissive parenting, on the other. As Lisa VanDamme points out, neither is the best approach for raising a happy, productive human being.

I can definitely agree with this.

Glenn thanks for posting that video.

Let's assume that she failed to learn even something as simple as percentages, because she was not properly raised or properly parented, although I doubt that that's the sole reason for her ignorance. It could also have a lot to do with our current educational system

LOL, no not with my sister. I get what you're saying about our current educational system and I agree. But with my sister I think she had it easy because she was my father's first child, and from what I understand fathers generally, mine definitely, are much easier on their daughters than they are on their sons. And my half-siblings mother from what I was told was not very strict with her children. So I call my sister princess because she expects everyone to wait on her hand and foot.

(Edited by John Armaos on 1/20, 6:04am)

Post 129

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 6:20am

Hi Ed, I think you and VanDamme bring up an excellent point about grades and not necessarily equating to a good education. However what would you propose an educator do in order to measure the student's level of understanding the subject matter being taught?

Post 130

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 9:01am

This thread is starting to wind down; there seems to be some agreement developing. I feel compelled, therefore, to add fuel to the fire. Several years ago I met a student at one of the Atlas Society (then TOC) Summer Seminars. He had just graduated from High School and he was planning to move to England to study with a physicist named David Deutsch. I asked him if he thought he was prepared to study physics with a well-known theorist like Deutsch. He said that he was going to study something called "Taking Children Seriously", an organization started by Deutsch. (You can read about it on Wikipedia here.) The young man had a fair amount of resentment toward his parents and how they had raised him, so he had personal reasons for pursuing this path.

Here's the thumbnail description provided by Wikipedia:

Taking Children Seriously (TCS) is a parenting movement and educational philosophy whose central idea is that it is possible and desirable to raise and educate children without either doing anything to them against their will, or making them do anything against their will.

I seem to recall this as a subject of discussion on this site several years ago, but I'm not sure. Anyway, I think this may be the antithesis of Chua's approach, and therefore the other side of a false dichotomy, but I thought I'd run it up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes it. : )

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 131

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 9:48am

John,

... what would you propose an educator do in order to measure the student's level of understanding ...?

Well, take biomechanics. In biomechanics, I taught students about levers in the body. View here for details**:

http://www.exrx.net/Kinesiology/Levers.html

The concrete-bound students wanted to merely memorize, rather than to understand, the levers. If I asked what kind of lever the biceps at the elbow is, these students would say it's a "third class" lever -- which is correct, but that (biceps) also happened to be the very example I used for third class levers in class! If I mixed things up a little and asked about the hamstrings, these same students might be stumped -- even though the hamstrings muscle, aka the "leg biceps", is a third class lever, too.

The difference is that I never told them that the hamstrings was a third class lever, I just taught the principles of the levers and left it up to the students to apply them to the various joints. In this way, I could check for a student's ability to apply the learned material to brand-new circumstances. I gave one main example for each of three kinds of levers:

1st class:
triceps

2nd class:
ankle plantar flexors (gastrocnemius & soleus muscles)

3rd class:
biceps

On the test, the "memorizers" could only get those 3 examples right, and bumbled through all of the other questions. Sometimes, taught subject matter was even more abstract, such as the predictable effect of a pace-maker on the cardiovascular response to aerobic exercise. In those scenarios, I'd try to get the students to teach me about what has to be true. Something like this:

Fact:
pacemakers control heart rates

Fact:
aerobic capacity is limited by blood flow, blood oxygen carrying capacity, and tissue 'off-loading' capacity

Fact:
blood flow = heart rate x stroke volume

Given these facts, how could someone on a pace-maker get more aerobic endurance? What has to change? What can't change (due to the pace-maker)?

Anyway, to "teach me" how it is that the body must respond -- if it is to become more fit even with a pace-maker -- students must orient themselves to the ideas of blood flow factors, blood oxygen factors, and tissue factors. After they taught me about the possible ways the body could respond (and taught me what was impossible, as well), then we examined studies about what actually does occur in the human body exercised with a pace-maker.

If instead I had jumped to the studies first, the "memorizers" would just memorize that most of the aerobic supercompensation comes from enlarged stroke volumes -- and then they'd stop thinking about the issue altogether.

In short, I propose making the students "teach" (as a means to measure their understanding).

Ed

**Fixed the link

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/20, 7:58pm)

Post 132

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 10:11am

Ah I see, so it's not grading students per se that's the issue it's how they are taught and how they are tested (specifically testing them for understanding concepts, not just memorization)

Post 133

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 10:46am

Can anyone here talk about a happy slacker family where everyone got along fine with passing grades and spent free time doing what they felt like doing? (Luke Setzer

You rang? :-)
�
I actually read through the entire thread before going back and actually watching the Van Damme video that John posted. And I'm glad I did, too, because she brought up the one single point I was going to chime in with (and she made the point better than I would have...)
What is "success"?

My son Jake is 18, and a freshman at the University of Illinois-Chicago. He is a full-time student (working to gain admittance into the business college), and works a 20-hour a week job tutoring 5th and 6th graders at a academically troubled public school in a rough neighborhood. He also runs a kind of home "store" where he sells baked goods, pop, chips, ice cream, and other goodies to people in the neighborhood...(he's serious about his little "business", too....he keeps excellent track of his spending and profits...he even has a cash register, for Pete's sake.... :-)

Oh, and he still finds time to sing "The Blues" at local venues on some weekends.

Jake was consistently on the "honor roll" through no prodding of mine...I have NEVER had to force him to do his homework. EVER. Not even when he was little. That's the truth. Like Luke, he wanted to get decent grades for himself, and that was all the motivation he needed. Notice I did not make the "straight-A" boast...he usually brought home a few B's, and sometimes--gasp! a C---but C's bothered HIM way more than it bothered me, and he would commit himself to bringing the grade up. Pleasing ME (or fearing my angry tirade---which never amounted to more than, "Hey, what happened here?") had nothing to do with it. Which is how it should be, in my opinion.

And as Ed pointed out (regarding grades and actual understanding) Jake usually had a better grasp of the material than some of the robots who just memorized facts to get A's. I absolutely know he did, because he would come home from school and talk about it....if he'd had an interesting history lesson that day, he couldn't wait to share it with me. He'd relate it like it was some fascinating story about people alive today.
�
No...he does not play violin or piano.

No...he did not make straight A's.

Sleepovers? Hell, he went to summer camp in Wisconsin for many years (and loved it.)

He has acted (and sung) in a school play. More than once.

And right now, my son is exactly where he wants to be: in college, pursuing his degree, working at a job he actually finds interesting and rewarding (if, at times, frustrating--you can imagine, I'm sure), exploring his "entrepreneurial spirit" with his store, and pursuing an interest he has enjoyed for many years, singing Blues music.

And he's happy, since these were all HIS choices, not mine.

If the (very specific, parent-defined) goals stated by Ms. Chua also define success to her children, well, then yes---her method works, and her children are successful.

Personally speaking, I wanted my son to define his own goals, and then work at them, and he has. And he does it for himself---not for me, or to impress anyone else.
(It does make one wonder, though, what sorts of choices Ms. Chua's children would have made if they'd been allowed to....someone here brought up Chinese jazz musicians...imagine Ms. Chua's horror if one of her daughters aspired to be the next "Koko Taylor, Queen of the Blues"....LMAO)

In short,

I consider my son to be successful.

(And, no....I'm not Chinese.)

Post 134

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 12:02pm

Thanks for sharing that, Erica!

Slackers rule!

Stressors suck!

Post 135

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 12:22pm

Erica that's awesome that your son is doing well!

Just wondering, did you ever have any instances where your son misbehaved, if so could you provide an example of that and what you did in response to the misbehavior? Now if you say he was a perfect angel, I'm going to be honest here and suspect this might be a bit of an exaggeration :)

Also, where do you think your son got this self-motivation from? Was there any kind of guidance you gave him or was this something he just developed on his own?

Also, would all children necessarily be just like your son if given the same style of parenting or would others need a different style of parenting because they may not necessarily be so innately inclined to be motivated to do well in school?

Post 136

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 1:26pm

Something that just occured to me, could we reasonably expect anyone on RoR to come forward and say:

"Hi my name is (insert name here). I am a complete loser. I am not successful in anyway. I am unemployed and or living in my parent's basement. I have no skills to speak of. I do enjoy playing World of Warcraft at minimum 13 hours a day. I attribute all of this to my parent who raised me in a (insert parenting style here) environment"

??

Post 137

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 1:35pm

By the way I was thinking more about Ed's comments, and I don't recall too much rote learning in my college days. Although my major (economics) is a heavily concept driven subject, most of my classes taught concepts and the tests reflected this. Some exceptions would be the foreign languages I took which included more memorization than most other subjects. High school on the other hand as I recall was largely rote memorization.

Post 138

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 1:48pm

Thanks, Luke!

John:
No, he was not always a "perfect angel" ...no kid is! :-)

There is much I want to explain, but I can't right now because of time constraints... I will post answers to all of your questions later tonight or tomorrow morning. I did utilize a common sense, "sort-of-philosophy" when raising Jake; I will explain it, and how I handled "misbehavior"...

Thanks for the kind words!

Post 139

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 2:02pm