View Single Post
Old 01-13-2011, 04:15 PM   #60
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
I'm not saying study 5 hours a day, practice piano for 3 hours a day and never make any friends or do anything outside of your parents' wishes, but there is a definite need to stress more academic achievement.
I am making the argument that what we have to as "academic achievement" is pretty meaningless. I am making the argument for a need to stress more of a quest for knowledge. Those two are not the same thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
All of the wealth we see today was built by previous generations. If we want to coast on those achievements, so be it. But I want the United States to remain the most dynamic economy in the world. To do that, we'll need to take a leaf out of the "Chinese parent's" playbook.
Why. If the US became a super power and the the most dynamic economy in the world by not using the "Chinese parent's" playbook, what makes you think changing the playbook is going to bring you success? If you have been winning the super bowl 7 out of the last 10 years, running the single wing offense and the 46 defense. Do you all of a sudden change to the run & shoot offense and 3-4 defense? This seems like a knee-jerk reaction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
Perhaps it's because people and civilizations grew up in different parts of the world. The more isolated a person is from another, the more likely they'll turn out to be different. The same can be said of societies. I don't think there are many things that are innate to the individual (encoded in their genetics) that can't be overriden by external influences. The language that you speak, for example, will influence how you think.
I suppose it all depends on the research you look at. Having been at UC Irvine when Gortowski started his 'Objective Drama' research, I tend to disagree with your point. His work showed "simple techniques that could exert a discernible and predictable impact on the doer regardless of her belief structures or culture of origin."

Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
Because their children are made up of their DNA. They should be the ones closest to their children and the ones most capable of looking out for their best interests. Is this always the case? No. But it's the standard case.
But, how much are they really made up of their DNA. How much of a delta is their between the kids DNA, the parents DNA, and the DNA of another individual chosen at random. A kid may have red hair and green eyes, nether of which the parents have. that is a pretty strong disparity of certain DNA, relative the the parents DNA. I understand your point. I just find it flawed. There is less than 25 difference in DNA between humans and chimps. Do you think there is really a marked difference in DNA between DNA of humans chosen at random and that of that small percentage difference, the percentage of those particular DNA sequences are going to be that significant? Really?


Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
There are a few themes to his book. You touched on the 10k hour rule, but that doesn't apply to business. To become a master at doing one particular task, it might take 10,000 hours of practice to do so. But to succeed in business is a combination of luck, circumstance, ability, etc. These factors are outside of a person's control. That's another theme of the book. That no man makes it on their own. That outside influences are critical to help people reach their innate potential.
Could those outside influences be people other than parents? Even (gasp!!) more critical than parents to their success?
Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
I actually do believe that intelligence can be taught. The way we measure intelligence now is an extremely crude representation of the capability of the human brain. But I do believe intelligence can be taught and we can even increase the average IQ score if there was a systematic approach to teach intelligence to people when they're young.
But, wait. You said the best way to measure success was buy standardized test scores. These are the standardized test scores we use. So that is the measurement we need to gauge by.

If you are going to apply your rationale in one area, do you not need to apply it to the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
Most people have my view of success. But they don't share my view on parenting. There's the difference. Most people want their children to go to excellent colleges, have high paying, meaningful jobs, and see their children succeed financially. They don't, for whatever reason, want to nurture their children in a way that maximizes the chance that their children can achieve success.
But again, how do you know this? What were Warren Buffet's parents like? Or fill in the blank. There are numerous examples of music, film, & sports starts who are very successful, make huge jack, who had parents who did not "maximize the chance that their children can achieve success." And there are examples of parents who did "the chance that their children can achieve success." and their kids OD'd on heroin or stepped in front of a train because they cracked under the pressure. This is the internet startup myth for children. Everybody hears the story of google, facebook, fill_in_the_blank company that became huge. Nobody hears the stories of the thousands of others that failed.

US history shows that this parenting behavior is often the case in 1st generation immigrants and their kids. As those folks future generations integrate into the culture that parenting often changes. Do we think that these "chinese mothers" will be that prevalent in the US 4 generations from now? History say no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
There is nothing wrong with that future. But I believe a better future can be achieved. A more educated society is a more productive society.
That depends on how you define educated.
Tell me. If you have two people, both are born and raised in a country where english is the primary language and both their parents are primarily english speakers and one can understand spoken english better than the other. Who is better educated?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
No man is an island. We need other people to get the things that we want and desire. That also means we need to consider how we are viewed within society.
That is hogwash.
Firstly: We can manipulate other people to get the things we and and desire. That does not mean we need to consider or care how we are actually viewed within the society. If we can con them into believing something, we are free to do so. That does not mean what we con them into thinking we are is who we are.
Secondly: The measure of people is supposed to be their ability to do things (that is success, is it not). Not what they believe or whether we like them, or their beliefs. If I am in sales and I can sell dbl everybody else and I am an atheist and the others are monotheists. Does it matter that I don't believe in god even though 92% of americans do?
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote