Are Chinese Mothers Superior?

[Skeptic Ginger]

My wife is Hispanic and was raised pretty much as described in the OP. Anything less than a 95 was punished with grounding, extra chores etc, but she was never physically punished. Plenty of verbal abuse though. I met her in the summer before her Senior year in HS and her parents had slightly let go the reins a little bit because they trusted her (dummies!). By the end of her Senior year, she was pregnant. However, the way they raised her may have been a big factor in her finishing college in 2.5 years (after the birth of our daughter) and getting through Med School. So, in my limited experience, there's got to be something to heavy-handed parenting styles. But then we get back to the age old nature vs. nurture question. No doubt my wife is a smart cookie, but would she have achieved as much if her parents hadn't pushed her?

There are pros and cons with strict parenting. And it makes a big difference how one's peers are also being raised. If you are the one restricted child among your peers who aren't, that has to be a lot harder than if you are raised with an expectation of conformity in a country where that is the norm.

As I said earlier, high demands of hard work and conformity have outcomes that may be strong on education and work ethic and weak on innovation and the ability to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.

China is experiencing a bit of a crisis in medical research at the moment, something I am familiar with. Researchers are under much greater pressure to report positive outcomes than researchers in other cultures are. And the importance of saving face is also interfering. The result is much of the medical research coming out of China at the moment is unreliable.

So here is an economy doing quite well as workers get low pay and still work hard. But one does not see the same successes coming out of the country's scientific community. And in the medical field, disease outbreaks can sometimes be covered up because local officials don't want to look like they can't handle the situation. That was particularly prevalent during the SARS crisis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your assertion is "ridiculous." Performance is part of the creative process and is, in essence, an arrangement (assuming the performer has not slavishly recreated a recording of a previous master) taking different tempi, accenting in varying places, adding touches of dynamic variation, shaping phrases differently. Are you suggesting that each piece of music is an entirely original work, completely devoid of any references to what has come before it? Genuine creativity is hard to come by and if we use your standard, there are extremely few true creators out there. I suggest you try to perform a masterwork and see how much of yourself you put in to it and then tell me if you were simply Xeroxing what Brahms (or even Lennon or McCartney) wrote.

I think you miss the point. It's not that one doesn't need the technical skills, it's that if you sacrifice independent thought by not allowing it or rewarding it, then that technical proficiency could actually come at the cost of stifling the creative genius a talented musician might have had.

 

[drkitten]

So, that brings up an interesting point: the sacrifice is not for a high level position (e.g. CEO) but for a place in the middle. Using my own career as a reference, that kind of sacrifice is completely unnecessary. The cost/benefit does not seemed justified; she is robbing them of their childhood essentially for little reward.

While I agree, you may be underestimating the reward.

There are two questions to consider here. The first is how much the partial reward of attending (a good) college is worth in the long run; the traditional answer, as given by examining the record of previous generations, is "quite a bit." The current recession, however, suggests that this reward may be changing; the unemployment rate for recent college graduates is something like 25% -- and those career-establishing years from age 22-25 are economically critical.

The second is how much competition there is for that reward, and the answer here seems to be "not much," but it's much greater for good programs -- and the programs that give the greatest payoff tend to be precisely those where a good work ethic is not just useful but a necessity. (E.g. hard sciences, mathematics, engineering, economics, and so forth, as opposed to the traditional humanities.)

E.g., you're not going to be an engineer without a degree, and not just a degree, but a technical degree, ideally in engineering. You're unlikely to get into medical school with an undergraduate degree in "media studies."

If this parenting ends up pushing the kids into biology rather than communications and they complete the degrees, they'll will be much better off. Of course, I've seen too many kids pushed into pre-med programs who end up wanting to do theater arts and wash out of organic chemistry, so I don't think this is a good plan, but I can understand how Dr. Chua sees the reward to be worth the "work."

 

[jj]

Ok, I don't post here, but I have to say:

Based on my own personal experience, speaking as an old hill jack married to a chinese person, the stereotypes and assumptions in the "chinese mom" and "american mom" descriptions are so insanely demented, wrong, and idiotic that I can't see any meat here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok, I don't post here, but I have to say:

Based on my own personal experience, speaking as an old hill jack married to a chinese person, the stereotypes and assumptions in the "chinese mom" and "american mom" descriptions are so insanely demented, wrong, and idiotic that I can't see any meat here.

Speaking for myself, I certainly never meant all Chinese or all Americans or anything close. The issues I have described were discussed among Chinese medical professionals in our infectious disease circles, and also in dealing with all the supposed evidence for acupuncture that is unreliable coming from Chinese researchers that we've discussed in bad medicine circles. Many chinese doctors and researchers are the ones who have pointed out the problems, so clearly no stereotype was meant.

In fact some higher level Chinese government officials punished lower level officials who hid SARS cases. Again, this is a problem many in China are well aware of.

In discussing the problems of research and monitoring disease outbreaks, the culture has been cited as one contributing factor.

 

[mike3]

There are pros and cons with strict parenting. And it makes a big difference how one's peers are also being raised. If you are the one restricted child among your peers who aren't, that has to be a lot harder than if you are raised with an expectation of conformity in a country where that is the norm.

As I said earlier, high demands of hard work and conformity have outcomes that may be strong on education and work ethic and weak on innovation and the ability to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.

So what I'm wondering about is what would only demand half that, i.e. make high demands of hard work but kick the conformity part, especially conformity of thought, to the wind? (In a country that allows this, of course.)

 

[mike3]

Here's another one from this genre:
Harvard Girl

These ones made their daughter hold ice cubes in her hands until they turned purple to "build character."

That particular measure I'd disagree with. What if you permanently damage their hands? Might as well go and have them stick their fingers (on one hand) in a wall socket until they can keep them there no longer. Personally, I'd think the jump ropes and the swimming would have been enough. This stunt is just stupid.

 

[mike3]

So what I'm wondering about is what would only demand half that, i.e. make high demands of hard work but kick the conformity part, especially conformity of thought, to the wind? (In a country that allows this, of course.)

(Though not toss, of course, "conformity" to the high work demands.)

 

[mike3]

While I agree, you may be underestimating the reward.

However, does even the properly-estimated reward justify every measure used? Does it justify every thing that the parent decided to "sacrifice" from the child?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So what I'm wondering about is what would only demand half that, i.e. make high demands of hard work but kick the conformity part, especially conformity of thought, to the wind? (In a country that allows this, of course.)

I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

I raised my son without any physical discipline, I was consistent for the most part (no one is a perfect parent), and we had lots of dialogue along the way. If I didn't have a rational reason to require something of him or deny him some freedom he wanted, I didn't make demands, (for the most part, again in no way is parenting that easy).

My son's getting his degree at the end of the year and has applied to several PhD programs. I'm very happy with the outcome, he's a great kid.

I would prefer creativity to conformity. But that's the culture I developed my values in.

And I should add, I'm a firm believer in teaching not forcing good behavior. A parent should have the goal of raising a child who behaves because they have learned internal controls and rewards. If you raise your child with too much discipline, how can you expect them to learn self control? That doesn't mean laissez faire parenting, BTW, it means tying discipline and rewards to the behavior, IE natural consequences teach a lot more than physical consequences like spanking.

 

[mike3]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

I raised my son without any physical discipline, I was consistent for the most part (no one is a perfect parent), and we had lots of dialogue along the way. If I didn't have a rational reason to require something of him or deny him some freedom he wanted, I didn't make demands, (for the most part, again in no way is parenting that easy).

My son's getting his degree at the end of the year and has applied to several PhD programs. I'm very happy with the outcome, he's a great kid.

I would prefer creativity to conformity. But that's the culture I developed my values in.

I guess what I mean is something that allows the kids to get really good at doing things and get the level of academic "achievement" that Asians get while also developing creativity and other good things that are had from the Western methods.

And I should add, I'm a firm believer in teaching not forcing good behavior. A parent should have the goal of raising a child who behaves because they have learned internal controls and rewards. If you raise your child with too much discipline, how can you expect them to learn self control? That doesn't mean laissez faire parenting, BTW, it means tying discipline and rewards to the behavior, IE natural consequences teach a lot more than physical consequences like spanking.

Yes. So what sort of "natural" consequences would come out of, e.g. lazing off in school that would "teach" the kid more? I don't necessarily approve of using the rod either, especially not for not doing well in school, but I would want to know how exactly what you're talking about jives with doing good in school.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess what I mean is something that allows the kids to get really good at doing things and get the level of academic "achievement" that Asians get while also developing creativity and other good things that are had from the Western methods.



Yes. So what sort of "natural" consequences would come out of, e.g. lazing off in school that would "teach" the kid more? I don't necessarily approve of using the rod either, especially not for not doing well in school, but I would want to know how exactly what you're talking about jives with doing good in school.

Well, since you asked....

First and foremost, don't try to choose for your child what he/she should be. Let them be who they are. Give them all the opportunities you can, but let them choose from among those opportunities. Your children are not an extension of you, they are individuals you have the pleasure of guiding. So if your kid wants to learn to play piano, fine, but kids have to be interested in musical instruments to really commit the time and effort to learn to play. Some kids are, some aren't.

If you find your child is not interested in school start by assessing the problem. Is the school boring them and/or are they being distracted by less efficient learning opportunities (junk TV, repetitious video games)? Or is it something altogether different like they are being bullied at school, or belittled by a teacher? After finding out what the problem is, the directions you can take depend on age.

How old is your child and what do you think the problem is?

 

[mike3]

Well, since you asked....

First and foremost, don't try to choose for your child what he/she should be. Let them be who they are. Give them all the opportunities you can, but let them choose from among those opportunities. Your children are not an extension of you, they are individuals you have the pleasure of guiding. So if your kid wants to learn to play piano, fine, but kids have to be interested in musical instruments to really commit the time and effort to learn to play. Some kids are, some aren't.

If you find your child is not interested in school start by assessing the problem. Is the school boring them and/or are they being distracted by less efficient learning opportunities (junk TV, repetitious video games)? Or is it something altogether different like they are being bullied at school, or belittled by a teacher? After finding out what the problem is, the directions you can take depend on age.

How old is your child and what do you think the problem is?

Thanks for the answer. Actually, I don't have any children, but I was interested in this topic, that's all.

 

[gumboot]

Horsefeathers. The performer contributes exactly as much to the composition as the actor does to the play. In both cases, the artistry consists of taking flat, inanimate marks on a page and making it come alive in such a way that the audience appreciates it -- and in the hands of a master, appreciates it at an emotional level, possibly seeing new aspects of the material that they had not seen before.

If you want to see just how good an actor/singer Zero Mostel is, for example, go watch any middle school performance of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum or Fiddler on the Roof. Then tell me that the performer is "contributing nothing to the work."

Thank you so much, dr. I can't believe the mindset out there that says a performer has nothing to add to the conversation. Comparing a Xerox to Shakespeare isn't even an apt analogy. The only time that is true is when someone completely plagiarizes a work. Yo-Yo Ma, Alessi, Hahn, Marsalis, et al are not simply "mimics" (what are they mimicking anyhow?) when they perform a piece in their own voice, in their own way. Could you imagine trying to reinvent the wheel every single time you picked up your instrument or got on stage?

Your assertion is "ridiculous." Performance is part of the creative process and is, in essence, an arrangement (assuming the performer has not slavishly recreated a recording of a previous master) taking different tempi, accenting in varying places, adding touches of dynamic variation, shaping phrases differently. Are you suggesting that each piece of music is an entirely original work, completely devoid of any references to what has come before it? Genuine creativity is hard to come by and if we use your standard, there are extremely few true creators out there. I suggest you try to perform a masterwork and see how much of yourself you put in to it and then tell me if you were simply Xeroxing what Brahms (or even Lennon or McCartney) wrote.

*Sigh* I at no stage claimed that a performer could not or did not bring their own artistry to a work. I am specifically talking of very young children, possessing a very high level of technical skill, yet lacking in any sort of innovation or creative input, who are then compared to historical musicians who were at the same age actually producing wholly original works, some of which are still very popular centuries later.

The nature of written music is such that it is possible to achieve a certain quality of performance solely through technical ability.

I hardly think citing adult musicians with a long and prodigious career and incredible wealth of musical knowledge really disproves my point. In fact I suspect if you talked to someone like Yo-Yo Ma they'd agree that their early childhood efforts were about learning technical mastery, and lacked the creative nuance and artistry of their adult work.

You only need go to a childrens' talent show (or for that matter watch an episode of American Idol) to see a perfect example of the same thing amongst singers - people with truly amazing voices who simply contribute no performance or artistry to the work whatsoever.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

That particular measure I'd disagree with. What if you permanently damage their hands? Might as well go and have them stick their fingers (on one hand) in a wall socket until they can keep them there no longer. Personally, I'd think the jump ropes and the swimming would have been enough. This stunt is just stupid.

Not only that, but it's something very painful. Cold induced pain is something we use for example in studies (on paid volunteers) about pain resistance. That's the standard method of causing pain in such studies, in fact: put your hand in a bucket of ice and water, see how long you can hold it there. Even then it's something measured in seconds and they're free to stop the pain when they can't take it any more.

And subjecting an unwilling victim to intense pain _is_ torture, plain and simple. So basically, yes, there is no fundamental difference between that and just belting that child or making her stick a finger in the socket. I mean, hell, they could have saved some time and just waterboarded her, takes less time to be utterly horrible and cause psychological damage.

And there is something even more repulsive about torturing someone not even as a punishment for doing something wrong, but as some screwed up notion of "building character."

But more importantly, unlike a fairly widespread mis-conception, exposure to intense pain does not make one less sensitive to it in the future. Studies showed that it just makes one _more_ sensitive to pain in the future.

So, yes, whether or not it caused permanent tissue damage in that child's hands, it did cause at least that permanent damage. Those idiots ensured that if that girl is in an accident or has a tooth abscess in the future -- or for that matter gives birth, which most women do sooner or later -- she'll suffer more.

*sigh* Sometimes I think shooting is too good for some people. The Evil Overlord's List be damned, shooting _is_ too good for some people

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

First and foremost, don't try to choose for your child what he/she should be. Let them be who they are. Give them all the opportunities you can, but let them choose from among those opportunities. Your children are not an extension of you, they are individuals you have the pleasure of guiding. So if your kid wants to learn to play piano, fine, but kids have to be interested in musical instruments to really commit the time and effort to learn to play. Some kids are, some aren't.

While mostly I'll agree with what you've said, I'd further that point by adding: they should also take care that they don't turn that into a DIScouragement of such passion.

I mean, to return to my own anecdote, I originally liked physics. A lot. My parents pretty much gave me a physics book when I had asked something like why the sky is blue. (They had also taught me to read long before school.) And I actually enjoyed learning the real reasons why the sky is blue or why there's a voice coming from the radio.

But then it turned into a mandatory chore. I was saddled with having to do more, basically, extra homework than the actual homework from school. I'm talking to the extent of doing 25 extra textbook exercises a day, years in advance of where I was in school.

Dad also got it into his head... well, I'd say to teach me, but actually more like to brag that he taught me. I had more extra hours taken out of my free time to basically teach him physics, while maintaining a laughable facade that he's teaching me.

I can tell you first hand that there are very few surer ways to turn a passion into a hate, than turning it into an unholy grind that eats up all your free time and then some.

It's not just me. My brother, who was obviously smarter, ended up dropping every hobby or interest he ever had, as soon as my parents got on his case and tried to make him the best at it.

Some family friends' children were more or less in the same situation too. I guess like-minded idiots tend to flock together, because my parents' circle had a lot of such unhappy children. One had showed a genuine interest in playing the violin, or so his dad's version was, but ended up having to practice it pretty much every waking hour. I don't think many people, including from that circle of idiots, had many delusions that that kid is still happy with it.

Basically taking a Mrs Chua approach is still wrong even if the child picked that activity him- or her-self.

 

[Pythonic]

My personal opinion of where Dr. Chua fails is believing there is any generalized method of child rearing. Fortunately, she did change methods when her daughter became rebellious. However, parenting is a social dynamic between individuals the same way it is with any two or more people. It really is the art of slowly and gradually persuading someone else to be something in particular. So, it depends on what the parent has in mind as a standard of success mixed with what the child is capable of and what their natural tendencies are. I believe this topic is far too big to generalize and I certainly believe no one is ever in a position to give parental advice regardless of their child's achievements. For some, an achievement oriented life is not desirable.

 

[themusicteacher]

*Sigh* I at no stage claimed that a performer could not or did not bring their own artistry to a work. I am specifically talking of very young children, possessing a very high level of technical skill, yet lacking in any sort of innovation or creative input, who are then compared to historical musicians who were at the same age actually producing wholly original works, some of which are still very popular centuries later.

The nature of written music is such that it is possible to achieve a certain quality of performance solely through technical ability.

I hardly think citing adult musicians with a long and prodigious career and incredible wealth of musical knowledge really disproves my point. In fact I suspect if you talked to someone like Yo-Yo Ma they'd agree that their early childhood efforts were about learning technical mastery, and lacked the creative nuance and artistry of their adult work.

You only need go to a childrens' talent show (or for that matter watch an episode of American Idol) to see a perfect example of the same thing amongst singers - people with truly amazing voices who simply contribute no performance or artistry to the work whatsoever.

*Sigh*

And I or anyone who is serious, at no time, stated that any child prodigy was being compared to Mozart because they possess great performance skill. Why does it always come back to the simplistic argument of "Yeah, but he's no Mozart." How many Mozart's do you think there have been? I can probably count them on one hand. You seem to be caught up on technical proficiency as well. How do you think people are able to perform the great works? Divine inspiration? Anyone who is actually paying attention knows full well that technique is the only part of the equation in bringing music to life. Sure, I can perform something technically well but be entirely amusical and this often happens with child prodigies (you did mention this).

The works of Mozart at a young age are technically proficient but lack musical depth and maturity. Once he hits his mid-20's, his musical genius begins to shine through and marries with his technical skill. Does this mean he wasn't really creative? BTW, which works by young composers that they did before they hit their 20's are still widely performed today? I would venture to guess they are few in number. I'd also like to know who you are referring specifically to that was/is compared to those greats from the past. I can agree that we shouldn't automatically confer greatness on someone because they achieved technical mastery but you have to gain that mastery before you can elucidate cogent musical performance but I've found that people tend to talk in potential with child prodigies. They all have to begin somewhere, though, and that is often in disciplined practicing of the patterns, listening to masters, riffing on what they've learned then trying to come up with something new. It usually happens in that order.

 

[traviss]

are we talking Chinese Nationals or Chinese in general? I grew up in an area with many Chinese Immigrants and know a bunch of slacker Chinese guys...in some cases worse off than the typical Apethetic Gen-X/Y'r. So the borderline offensive question aside, which is it?

 

[technoextreme]

Ok, I don't post here, but I have to say:

Based on my own personal experience, speaking as an old hill jack married to a chinese person, the stereotypes and assumptions in the "chinese mom" and "american mom" descriptions are so insanely demented, wrong, and idiotic that I can't see any meat here.

Yeah I've known plenty of Chinese people also. The stereotype isn't that demented. Go back to the forum that you copy and pasted your posts from.

are we talking Chinese Nationals or Chinese in general? I grew up in an area with many Chinese Immigrants and know a bunch of slacker Chinese guys...in some cases worse off than the typical Apethetic Gen-X/Y'r. So the borderline offensive question aside, which is it?

Me too but the parents were pretty much still acting like the tiger parents.