What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior (1 Viewer)

I saw this thread before, but didn't realize that the author of the article was Amy Chua. She taught at Duke while I was there. I didn't have her for any classes, but she was kind of famous for being hot: maybe a 6 on the FFA scale, but pretty much a 10 on the law professor scale.

 
I read some of the excerpts. The book title is misleading, unless she was writing about Chinese American soccer moms. Older generations of Chinese women were illiterate because only boys received an education. Therefore, they wouldn't be reviewing the kids' homework, much less tell them their essays are not good enough. Most traditional Chinese families are not much into music and many are not rich enough to afford or waste money on "frivolous" violin lessons for their kids. My guess is they would be really lucky if they could go to school and not work in the rice paddies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This strategy of parenting seems really good for raising blue collar workers. However, white collar jobs seem to benefit from a more Western style upbringing. Based on the information from this lecture.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
Students aren't asked to be creative nearly as much as they are asked to memorize and regurgitate concepts. So being a student is more like being a blue collar worker.
 
I read some of the excerpts. The book title is misleading, unless she was writing about Chinese American soccer moms. Older generations of Chinese women were illiterate because only boys received an education. Therefore, they wouldn't be reviewing the kids' homework, much less tell them their essays are not good enough. Most traditional Chinese families are not much into music and many are not rich enough to afford or waste money on "frivolous" violin lessons for their kids. My guess is they would be really lucky if they could go to school and not work in the rice paddies.
:popcorn: Not exactly on point.

The author went Harvard; her mother went to MIT.

 
I read some of the excerpts. The book title is misleading, unless she was writing about Chinese American soccer moms. Older generations of Chinese women were illiterate because only boys received an education. Therefore, they wouldn't be reviewing the kids' homework, much less tell them their essays are not good enough. Most traditional Chinese families are not much into music and many are not rich enough to afford or waste money on "frivolous" violin lessons for their kids. My guess is they would be really lucky if they could go to school and not work in the rice paddies.
:thumbup: Not exactly on point.

The author went Harvard; her mother went to MIT.
Not everyone goes to these schools. I doubt all Chinese mothers do what she does. Did her own mother bring her up the same way? Abused children tend to grow up to abuse their own children.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rohn Jambo said:
The book title is misleading, unless she was writing about Chinese American soccer moms.
The book title is Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. It's a memoir about some of the things she thinks she did right as a parent, and some of the ways in which she screwed up.In the interview linked to a few posts up, she says she's writing about the parenting styles of many immigrants and their next few generations in the U.S. (prominently including Chinese immigrants, but not just Chinese, and not just Asian) — specifically, immigrants of a certain social class: generally those who immigrated as skilled workers or graduate students.

So yeah, Chinese-American soccer moms is pretty close.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bryan Caplan (summarizing the work of others) has long contended that, to oversimiplify, parenting doesn't matter. I think I may have started a thread on it once, but I'm not sure.

Here are his comments on the Chua excerpt.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the interview linked to a few posts up, she says she's writing about the parenting styles of many immigrants and their next few generations in the U.S. (prominently including Chinese immigrants, but not just Chinese, and not just Asian) — specifically, immigrants of a certain social class: generally those who immigrated as skilled workers or graduate students.So yeah, Chinese-American soccer moms is pretty close.
One of my Indian friends is a relative of the girl who won last year's National Spelling Bee. She herself is a full time mom and her kids go to private school. From talking to her, the women that she socializes with are very competitive, particularly about their kids' academic achievement. I think this may be true with a lot of immigrant communities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rohn Jambo said:
I read some of the excerpts. The book title is misleading, unless she was writing about Chinese American soccer moms. Older generations of Chinese women were illiterate because only boys received an education. Therefore, they wouldn't be reviewing the kids' homework, much less tell them their essays are not good enough. Most traditional Chinese families are not much into music and many are not rich enough to afford or waste money on "frivolous" violin lessons for their kids. My guess is they would be really lucky if they could go to school and not work in the rice paddies.
There are a LOT of generalizations here.
 
There has been no shortage of counter-argument articles to Chua's book come out this week, but I like this one for being succinct and on point:

Christine Carter, PhD

sociologist, parent educator, and author of Raising Happiness

Posted: January 14, 2011 09:36 AM

Chinese Mothers Controversy: Why Amy Chua Is Wrong About Parenting

The media is abuzz about Amy Chua's book, "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother" (excerpted in The Wall Street Journal). Chua argues that "Chinese" mothers "are superior" because they demand absolute perfection and won't refrain from berating, threatening, and even starving their kids until they're satisfied.

Chua acknowledges that her argument will offend softy "Western" parents, who prefer to coddle rather than throttle their kids, and who prioritize happiness over achievement.

I am not offended as much as worried. My inbox is full of e-mails from parents looking for an answer: Should I be more demanding? Will my children be aimless underachievers if I foster things like friendship and gratitude rather than tripling their piano practice time?

Though I'm anything but permissive, even by Chua's standards, I am one of those "Western" parents who absolutely do prioritize children's long-term happiness over their achievements and performances. Ironically, I adapted these values from a confluence of Eastern philosophy -- particularly Lao-tzu's "Tao Te Ching" and Buddhist teachings -- and Western science, which provides ample evidence that success follows happiness and not the other way around.

Chua's argument goes against years of scientific research into what makes kids truly happy -- and successful -- in life. Moreover, it rests on a faulty premise: Rather than being overly permissive, many American parents -- especially the well-educated, affluent Americans reading excerpts in the WSJ or on Slate.com -- are overly focused on achievement already. Chua's guide to raising ever-more high-achieving children could fuel this fire, and that's scary.

Chua defines success narrowly, focusing on achievement and perfection at all costs: Success is getting straight As and being a violin or piano prodigy. Three decades of research clearly suggests that such a narrow focus on achievement can produce wildly unhappy people. Yes, they may boast perfect report cards and stunning piano recitals, but we are a country full of high-achieving but depressed and suicidal college students, a record number of whom take prescription medication for anxiety and depression.

Chua argues that happiness comes from mastery, and that mastery is achieved through "tenacious practice, practice, practice." She's right here -- practice does fuel success -- but she's wrong that forced mastery will lead to happiness. "Once a child starts to excel at something," she writes, "he or she gets praise, admiration and satisfaction. This builds confidence and makes the once not-fun activity fun. This in turn makes it easier for the parent to get the child to work even more."

Although there's some logic to this "virtuous circle," the drug-like gratification that comes from this type of achievement is not happiness or fulfillment: Once the initial exhilaration wears off, it's on to the next goal, in search of that elusive feeling of accomplishment. It's success without long-term enjoyment, work without meaning.

Chua is prescribing life motivated by perfectionism -- fear of failure, fear of disappointment. Not only is this a vicious form of unhappiness, but research by Carol Dweck and many others shows that kids who are not allowed to make mistakes don't develop the resilience or grit they need later in life to overcome challenges or pick themselves up when they do fail. Perfectionists are far more likely to be depressed and anxious, and in college they are more likely to commit suicide.

Perhaps even more disconcerting is how Chua disparages play and friendships: She takes pride in never letting her kids have playdates or sleepovers, so that they have more time for schoolwork and practicing their instruments.

If scientists have learned anything on the subject, it's that social connections are the foundation for happiness, health, and success in life. When kids build friendships through play, their social and emotional intelligence flourishes; social skills are a key predictor of success later in life. What's more, research clearly links loneliness and isolation with chronic illness and increased mortality rates, not to mention unhappiness.

Chua also recommends motivating kids through coercion and threats -- a recipe not just for unhappiness but also for unethical behavior. People who are motivated externally with threats and rewards are less creative, less able to solve problems and more likely to cheat to meet the expectations of those around them.

I'm not suggesting that you should fret about your children's self-esteem, pump them full of false praise, or let them run wild. I don't do those things, and I don't advocate permissive parenting. I do advocate happiness and joy as the paths to a meaningful life.

But if that sounds fluffy to you -- if you, like Chua, value your children's success over their long-term happiness -- and you are inclined to practice Chua's methods for turning out an Ivy-Leaguer, here is what I want you to remember: Fostering the skills that kids need for happiness is a better bet for their long-term success.
 
Iowa Gunman Was Torn by Academic ChallengeBy MICHEL MARRIOTTPublished: November 04, 1991 * Sign In to E-Mail * Print * Single-PageIOWA CITY, Iowa, Nov. 3 — To many of the 28,000 students who attend the University of Iowa, the Department of Physics and Astronomy seemed as if it existed in a universe all its own.For six years, Gang Lu, one of the department's most gifted graduate students, knew that universe well as he explored the mind-bending complexities of space plasma theory, his specialty. It is a stream of science so narrow, experts say, that only about 300 people in the world are conducting research in the field.But acquaintances of Mr. Lu say the 28-year-old native of Beijing reveled in a challenge -- as long as he triumphed.And while many people knew him to be temperamental, angered by what he saw as unfair treatment by some faculty members and administrators, nobody was prepared for the rampage of murder and suicide that he unleashed on Friday."He had a very bad temper and saw himself as No. 1," said Xuming Chi, a doctoral candidate who was a former roommate of Mr. Lu. "He had a psychological problem with being challenged."Mr. Lu was feeling especially pressured in recent months, acquaintances said. He had continued to visit the department's offices and laboratories in Van Allen Hall even after he received his doctoral degree in May, said Mr. Chi and others who knew Mr. Lu. Renowned ProgramThe department's doctoral program is nationally recognized as highly competitive, one that can create great stress, students and professors say. That stress is compounded by a shrinking market in which a doctoral degree does not always translate into a job befitting the education.Still, Mr. Lu "seems to have obviously felt pressures that are abnormal," said John Fix, the associate chairman for astronomy, who was once a faculty adviser to Mr. Lu.Mr. Lu has also been described by some who knew him as a driven yet gentle person. Whatever went wrong was internal, Dr. Fix said.Mr. Lu had impressed professors with a computer calculation of the properties of ionized gases. His work with these substances, called plasmas by scientists, was the subject of the doctoral dissertation he completed last spring, university officials said.It was the reception his dissertation received, less enthusiastic than Mr. Lu thought it deserved, that apparently touched off his rampage on Friday, said investigators who discovered letters in which Mr. Lu had outlined his grievances and his plans to exact deadly revenge.
 
Stumbled upon an interesting and entertaining documentary (via This American Life) about three Chinese third graders vying for the Class Monitor position and how serious business it is for their parents...

 
Bryan Caplan (summarizing the work of others) has long contended that, to oversimiplify, parenting doesn't matter. I think I may have started a thread on it once, but I'm not sure.
Yes, I remember that thread but it looks like it's been purged. It's very difficult to square that view with anecdotal evidence.
 
There has been no shortage of counter-argument articles to Chua's book come out this week, but I like this one for being succinct and on point:

Christine Carter, PhD

sociologist, parent educator, and author of Raising Happiness

Posted: January 14, 2011 09:36 AM

Chinese Mothers Controversy: Why Amy Chua Is Wrong About Parenting

if you, like Chua, value your children's success over their long-term happiness -- and you are inclined to practice Chua's methods for turning out an Ivy-Leaguer, here is what I want you to remember: Fostering the skills that kids need for happiness is a better bet for their long-term success.
Seems to me that there's a lot of talking past each other going on in this critique. I don't think Chua would agree that she values her children's success over their happiness. I think she'd say that being successful leads to long term happiness. And if you define success as being awesome at the violin, I don't see how fostering your kid's happiness is going to achieve that goal.
 
People are offended by the Tiger Mom's new book, "The Triple Package"....

Tiger Mom: Some cultural groups are superior

http://nypost.com/2014/01/04/tiger-mom-some-groups-are-just-better-than-others/

Shes doubling down.

Amy Chua, the self-proclaimed Tiger Mom who, in 2011, published a book arguing that Chinese women are superior mothers thus their offspring superior children has even more to say.

In The Triple Package, Chua and her husband, co-author Jed Rubenfeld, gather some specious stats and anecdotal evidence to argue that some groups are just superior to others and everyone else is contributing to the downfall of America.

Unsurprisingly, the Chinese Chua and the Jewish Rubenfeld belong to two of the eight groups they deem exceptional. In no seeming order of importance, they are:

Jewish
Indian
Chinese
Iranian
Lebanese-Americans
Nigerians
Cuban exiles
Mormons

These groups cultural, mind you, never ethnic or racial or religious all possess, in the authors estimation, three qualities that theyve identified as guarantors of wealth and power: superiority, insecurity and impulse control.

That certain groups do much better in America than others as measured by income, occupational status, test scores and so on is difficult to talk about, the authors write.

{snip}

On to the distinguishing factors that make these eight groups the best in America:

1. A superiority complex

Any group that collectively believes they are inherently better than any other, say the authors, has an advantage. They do not note that this is perhaps humanitys oldest and ugliest flaw, the bottom-line cause of wars and genocide. In their estimation, its not nearly common enough in America, where the Superiority Complex . . . is antithetical to mainstream liberal thinking . . . the stuff of racism, colonialism, imperialism, Nazism. This way of thinking, they write, has been a big boon to Mormons and Jews, though they also fail to note that believing in the superiority of a belief system is the driving force behind almost all organized religion. (Except the Amish. The authors freely note that the Amish are losers for this very reason.)

2. Insecurity

Here are the authors sounding most like Malcolm Gladwell: Posit something, make a solid case for it, then immediately refute it with equal fervor. The result: Readers are so confused that they can only conclude that this book is so much smarter than they are.

The authors are very impressed with their boldness in juxtaposing insecurity with superiority. That insecurity should be a critical lever of success is another anathema, flouting the entire orthodoxy of contemporary popular and therapeutic psychology, they write. In fact, insecurity has long been known as a prime motivator among actors, artists, CEOs, despots. Imposter syndrome, the term used to describe highly successful individuals who believe, deep down, they are frauds, was identified back in 1978.

Note that theres a deep tension between insecurity and a superiority complex, the authors continue. Its odd to think of people being simultaneously insecure but also convinced of their divine election or superiority. Really? Just ask anyone whos ever met a narcissist, or read a profile of A-Rod.

3. Impulse Control

Yet another hallmark of self-help, impulse control is considered to be a key factor in personal success the ability to delay instant gratification in the service of a greater goal. But this isnt really what the authors have in mind: As well use the term, they write, impulse control refers to the ability to resist temptation, especially the temptation to give up in the face of hardship or quit instead of persevering at a difficult task.

You know whos bad at this? Americans not among their eight groups. Because all three elements of the Triple Package run so counter to modern American culture, it makes sense that Americas successful groups are all outsiders in one way or another, they write. Paradoxically, in modern America, a group has an edge if it doesnt buy into or hasnt yet bought into mainstream, post-1960s, liberal American principles.

{snip}

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Penguin Books summary....

http://www.us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/1,,9781594205460,00.html

It may be taboo to say, but some groups in America do better than others.

Mormons have recently risen to astonishing business success. Cubans in Miami climbed from poverty to prosperity in a generation. Nigerians earn doctorates at stunningly high rates. Indian and Chinese Americans have much higher incomes than other Americans; Jews may have the highest of all.

Why do some groups rise?

Drawing on groundbreaking original research and startling statistics, The Triple Package uncovers the secret to their success. A superiority complex, insecurity, impulse controlthese are the elements of the Triple Package, the rare and potent cultural constellation that drives disproportionate group success.

The Triple Package is open to anyone. America itself was once a Triple Package culture. Its been losing that edge for a long time now. Even as headlines proclaim the death of upward mobility in America, the truth is that the old fashioned American Dream is very much alive but some groups have a cultural edge, which enables them to take advantage of opportunity far more than others.

-- Americans are taught that everyone is equal, that no group is superior to another. But remarkably, all of Americas most successful groups believe (even if they dont say so aloud) that theyre exceptional, chosen, superior in some way.

-- Americans are taught that self-esteemfeeling good about yourselfis the key to a successful life. But in all of Americas most successful groups,
people tend to feel insecure, inadequate, that they have to prove themselves.

-- America today spreads a message of immediate gratification, living for the moment. But all of Americas most successful groups cultivate heightened discipline and impulse control.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top