Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior

This entire thread has nothing to do with politics, it should be in OT.

Originally Posted by Master Po

@If it was not in the genes and all it takes is hard work, practice, practice and more practice to excel in sports, you can bet Asians parents would force their kids to be football players. Are you kidding me? Any bench warmer in the NFL makes more than a doctor and definitely much more than any philharmonic violin player.

are you kidding me? what's the minimum salary for NFL? $285k for a rookie, and it increases with seniority. $285k per year

A world-class violinist (say, Itzhak Perlman) can make well more than that. Consider that a weekend engagement will usually start around $50k for three days. More for a solo performance. Plus taking care of travel and amenities.

One weekend engagement a month for a year will yeild more than many NFL players.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

are you kidding me? what's the minimum salary for NFL? $285k for a rookie, and it increases with seniority. $285k per year

A world-class violinist (say, Itzhak Perlman) can make well more than that. Consider that a weekend engagement will usually start around $50k for three days. More for a solo performance. Plus taking care of travel and amenities.

One weekend engagement a month for a year will yeild more than many NFL players.

Your comparing the best violinist to the worst NFL player can't do that its not a fair comparison

Originally Posted by fizzz

Your comparing the best violinist to the worst NFL player can't do that its not a fair comparison

the statement was that any NFL benchwarmer makes more than any doctor or violinist.

There are violinists that make more than some NFL players

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

are you kidding me? what's the minimum salary for NFL? $285k for a rookie, and it increases with seniority. $285k per year

A world-class violinist (say, Itzhak Perlman) can make well more than that. Consider that a weekend engagement will usually start around $50k for three days. More for a solo performance. Plus taking care of travel and amenities.

One weekend engagement a month for a year will yeild more than many NFL players.

Why you feel the need to compare a world class violinist with a rookie NLF player?
Your rookie violinist will probably not make ends meet without the support from family.
Can you make a point without needing to stretch facts?

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

the statement was that any NFL benchwarmer makes more than any doctor or violinist.

There are violinists that make more than some NFL players

You're missing the forest for the tree.

Any NLF benchwarmer (or rookie) will make more than any benchwarmer doctor (or intern).
Yet, Asians strive to be doctors, not NFL players. Why?
Because they know they will succeed in medicine, if they survive the internship. It's time proven and a safe bet.
They also know that they will not survive the NFL rookie season, if they even make it that far. Have you ever seen an Asian in NLF (no I don't consider Hawaiians Asians).

The point is to show that it's not just practice makes perfect.
No matter how much they practice football, they won't make it. Get it?

There's a lot fewer NFL players than doctors. I'm not sure I understand the argument you're making.

There's about 2500 NFL players in the US. About 650000 doctors. Which one do you think it's easier to become?

Professional Football is my favorite sport

Originally Posted by Master Po

The point is to show that it's not just practice makes perfect.
No matter how much they practice football, they won't make it. Get it?

Not quite true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Wang

It also list 4 other players of mixed chinese decent to have played in the NFL.

Originally Posted by Master Po

You're missing the forest for the tree.

Any NLF benchwarmer (or rookie) will make more than any benchwarmer doctor (or intern).
Yet, Asians strive to be doctors, not NFL players. Why?
Because they know they will succeed in medicine, if they survive the internship. It's time proven and a safe bet.
They also know that they will not survive the NFL rookie season, if they even make it that far. Have you ever seen an Asian in NLF (no I don't consider Hawaiians Asians).

The point is to show that it's not just practice makes perfect.
No matter how much they practice football, they won't make it. Get it?

Well, there are actually a few Asian American football players at the college level. The reason why you see so few is a cultural thing. Asian American parents are more likely to stress academic achievement than sports achievement. As you get more Americanized Asian Americans, you'll start to see more Asians in football, perhaps even at the NFL level.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

That is also something to remember in all this. Not every person raising a child has the characteristics to raise them in this manner, nor do they believe it is in the child's best interest. So, it is a live and let live situation. It works for her. Great. But, that doesn;t mean it is the right model for everybody or that one model is better than another.

If you define success with measurable components, you can say one method of parenting is more successful than the other if there are statistically significant differences (adjusted for various other measurable factors). 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.

This is the question. We hear all the time about how the US is falling behind in education and how so many people don't want to work and just want things handed to them and how all this laissez faire parenting is "bad". Yet, this is not a "bleeped up situation". So which is it. If people are "relatively satisfied with their situation and community" than is their anything wrong with the "western" parenting that has been going on. Are these Chinese mothers really superior? Perhaps not.

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.

We disagree. Children are not "blank slates". If they were, then they would be only that of which they are programmed, and yet they are not. At least in most cases. If they were blank slates, we would not have the vast number of religions, philosophies, musical and artistic styles, and the list goes on. People have different abilities and talents. Those often are innate. I can see a 2d problem in 3d. I don't try to. I wasn't trained to. I just do. It is how my brain and my brain chemistry process certain types of information. That does not fall into the "blank slate" model. And the same is true for many people and what are often refferred to as natural talents, gifts, affinities, etc.

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.

Is it really far better. What, for lack of a better word, qualifies these parents to make the "right decisions" better than some peer or stranger?

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, that doesn't hold up. Did Gladwell fail to mention that Bill Gates bought DOS from somebody else, and didn't actually write the code himself. So his 10,000 hours in front of a computer didn't really have much to do with that success, now did it.

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.

If it was "all about nurture", why is the avg IQ 100. Given the strictly nurture view, one could systematically raise another person's IQ from 100 to 180 given enough nurture. Not likely to happen. Brain chemistry, how neurons fire, what is the resistance along sodium and calcium pathways in the brain is just as likely if not more likely to determine how someone's brain will operate than how many flash cards they are shown.

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.

And hey, that is great. Works for you. Awesome. Want to raise your kids and measure them by that. Go for it. More power to ya. But, that is your particular view. Other people have other views of success, and theirs are equally as valid as yours. That is the point.

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.

If this parenting is raising people who are relatively satisfied with their situation and community, what is wrong with that future.

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.

It is the point. I am greatly concerned that so many people do care about their "good reputation". Being so concerned with what other people think. If there is a "problem", that is it. People are not willing to say "f**k off". This is who I am, this is what i am. You don't like. Mom & Dad don't like it. So&so don't like it. Ask me if I give a sh!t. It is my life and I will live it how I wish. If I f**k it up, that is on me. But, it will be my call because its my life. Accept me for who I am or don't. Either way is OK by me. But, I am not going to be anything else than who I am and who I choose to be. Like it or not.

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.

I'm having Chinese food tonight with a friend, though I find Japanese food to be superior.

Originally Posted by hayabusa55

There's a lot fewer NFL players than doctors. I'm not sure I understand the argument you're making.

There's about 2500 NFL players in the US. About 650000 doctors. Which one do you think it's easier to become?

If you read the article it would have been clear to you that Chinese parents don't shy away from difficulty.
Besides, your numbers are meaningless without also mentioning how many people apply to NFL and how many apply to medical school.
If what you're implying is true (that getting in medical school is easier than getting in the NFL) why don't more black students aim for medical school?

If you must use odds as explanation, consider this analogy: say the odds at the race track are much better than the odds at the poker table.
If you're good with cards and reading people's reactions, should you go bet on horses?
In a sense it has to do with odd, but not absolute odds, it's about maximizing YOUR odds at success.
So, the blacks gravitate towards football, even though getting in medical school might be easier FOR YOU. Understandable choice?

Originally Posted by Master Po

...

Really don't feel like discussing race. To me it's a matter of child rearing and I think this lady is doing a disservice to her children and running the risk of many parents out there doing the same.

Originally Posted by rapier7

Asian Americans have the highest math scores and the most college degrees per capita than any other ethnicity. That's the only reason why they're close to matching non-Hispanic whites in income while every other demographic is making less than 2/3 of non-Hispanic whites make.

There's a reason for this. It has to do with the different (or more efficicent way) way numbers are interpreted and calculated.

http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/outliers_excerpt3.html

Rice Paddies and Math Tests

"No one who can rise before dawn three hundred and sixty days a year fails to make his family rich."

An excerpt from Chapter Eight.

Take a look at the following list of numbers: 4,8,5,3,9,7,6. Read them out loud to yourself. Now look away, and spend twenty seconds memorizing that sequence before saying them out loud again.

If you speak English, you have about a 50 percent chance of remembering that sequence perfectly If you're Chinese, though, you're almost certain to get it right every time. Why is that? Because as human beings we store digits in a memory loop that runs for about two seconds. We most easily memorize whatever we can say or read within that two second span. And Chinese speakers get that list of numbers—4,8,5,3,9,7,6—right every time because—unlike English speakers—their language allows them to fit all those seven numbers into two seconds.

That example comes from Stanislas Dehaene's book "The Number Sense," and as Dehaene explains:

Chinese number words are remarkably brief. Most of them can be uttered in less than one-quarter of a second (for instance, 4 is 'si' and 7 'qi') Their English equivalents—"four," "seven"—are longer: pronouncing them takes about one-third of a second. The memory gap between English and Chinese apparently is entirely due to this difference in length. In languages as diverse as Welsh, Arabic, Chinese, English and Hebrew, there is a reproducible correlation between the time required to pronounce numbers in a given language and the memory span of its speakers. In this domain, the prize for efficacy goes to the Cantonese dialect of Chinese, whose brevity grants residents of Hong Kong a rocketing memory span of about 10 digits.

It turns out that there is also a big difference in how number-naming systems in Western and Asian languages are constructed. In English, we say fourteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen and nineteen, so one would think that we would also say one-teen, two-teen, and three-teen. But we don't. We make up a different form: eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fifteen. Similarly, we have forty, and sixty, which sound like what they are. But we also say fifty and thirty and twenty, which sort of sound what they are but not really. And, for that matter, for numbers above twenty, we put the "decade" first and the unit number second: twenty-one, twenty-two. For the teens, though, we do it the other way around. We put the decade second and the unit number first: fourteen, seventeen, eighteen. The number system in English is highly irregular. Not so in China, Japan and Korea. They have a logical counting system. Eleven is ten one. Twelve is ten two. Twenty-four is two ten four, and so on.

That difference means that Asian children learn to count much faster. Four year old Chinese children can count, on average, up to forty. American children, at that age, can only count to fifteen, and don't reach forty until they're five: by the age of five, in other words, American children are already a year behind their Asian counterparts in the most fundamental of math skills.

The regularity of their number systems also means that Asian children can perform basic functions—like addition—far more easily. Ask an English seven-year-old to add thirty-seven plus twenty two, in her head, and she has to convert the words to numbers (37 + 22). Only then can she do the math: 2 plus 7 is nine and 30 and 20 is 50, which makes 59. Ask an Asian child to add three-tens-seven and two tens-two, and then the necessary equation is right there, embedded in the sentence. No number translation is necessary: It's five-tens nine.

"The Asian system is transparent," says Karen Fuson, a Northwestern University psychologist, who has done much of the research on Asian-Western differences. "I think that it makes the whole attitude toward math different. Instead of being a rote learning thing, there's a pattern I can figure out. There is an expectation that I can do this. There is an expectation that it's sensible. For fractions, we say three fifths. The Chinese is literally, 'out of five parts, take three.' That's telling you conceptually what a fraction is. It's differentiating the denominator and the numerator."

The much-storied disenchantment with mathematics among western children starts in the third and fourth grade, and Fuson argues that perhaps a part of that disenchantment is due to the fact that math doesn't seem to make sense; its linguistic structure is clumsy; its basic rules seem arbitrary and complicated.

Asian children, by contrast, don't face nearly that same sense of bafflement. They can hold more numbers in their head, and do calculations faster, and the way fractions are expressed in their language corresponds exactly to the way a fraction actually is—and maybe that makes them a little more likely to enjoy math, and maybe because they enjoy math a little more they try a little harder and take more math classes and are more willing to do their homework, and on and on, in a kind of virtuous circle.

When it comes to math, in other words, Asians have built-in advantage. . .

Originally Posted by hayabusa55

Really don't feel like discussing race. To me it's a matter of child rearing and I think this lady is doing a disservice to her children and running the risk of many parents out there doing the same.

Race is an implied topic in this thread.

I think this has been said before...
live and let live.

I think this is more about culture than race.

Originally Posted by OrientBlau

There's a reason for this. It has to do with the different (or more efficicent way) way numbers are interpreted and calculated.

http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/outliers_excerpt3.html

That is total
That guy didn't put much thought in his theory and it shows.

If that was true, that the secret is just in how you pronounce numbers, American born Chinese (ABC) would be no better than their American counterpart. I can tell you for a fact that ABCs don't, save a few rare exceptions, count in Chinese for the most part.
But look at the college acceptance rates... it's dominated by ABCs, not foreign Chinese students off the boat.

It's definitely in the genes and in parenting.

Does "live and let live" include letting someone with absolutely no credentials propagate falsehoods and what could be considered a dangerous way to raise children without even questioning it?

Master Po, it appears to me that while rapier is advocating the parenting style described, you're just looking for reasons to say that Asians or Chinese are smarter than the rest.

Originally Posted by hayabusa55

Does "live and let live" include letting someone with absolutely no credentials propagate falsehoods and what could be considered a dangerous way to raise children?

what's the alternative? You gonna stop her? How?

Do you have kids? Are you going to follow her "teachings"?

Originally Posted by rapier7

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.

Originally Posted by rapier7

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.

Originally Posted by rapier7

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."

Originally Posted by rapier7

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?

Originally Posted by rapier7

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.

Originally Posted by rapier7

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.

Originally Posted by rapier7

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.

Originally Posted by rapier7

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?

Originally Posted by rapier7

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?