Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior

Originally Posted by Master Po

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

I will not stop her singlehandedly, but there's plenty in regular and social media clearly demonstrating that her "teachings" are ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Master Po

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

I don't have kids. When I do, I will definitely not follow her "teachings".

Originally Posted by hayabusa55

I
I don't have kids. When I do, I will definitely not follow her "teachings".

I didn't think so either.
So, her "ramblings" won't affect you.

Live and let live means
let others, like rapier7, worry about how he raises his kids.

Unless, you're afraid his kids will take up the precious few violin spots in the NY Philharmonic Orchestra.
BTW, I place my bet on his kids over yours, no matter what parenting style you adopt. The odds are in my favor.

Originally Posted by Master Po

I didn't think so either.
So, her "ramblings" won't affect you.

But I am not only concerned about things that affect me personally. Why are we trying to put an end to family violence and child abuse? It doesn't affect "you", right? I'd much rather see this book debunked, than have a number of kids have to undergo this sort of treatment.

Originally Posted by Master Po

Live and let live means
let others, like rapier7, worry about how he raises his kids.

If he wants to have sex with his kids, should one also "live and let live"

Originally Posted by Master Po

Unless, you're afraid his kids will take up the precious few violin spots in the NY Philharmonic Orchestra.
BTW, I place my bet on his kids over yours, no matter what parenting style you adopt. The odds are in my favor.

Because he's Asian?

Originally Posted by rdsesq

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.

When the facts change you have to change your opinion. The United States has relied on hard working or intelligent immigrants to get to where it is today. But as the rest of the world catches up, it will be harder and harder to attract the best talent from abroad. We're still the best option, but we will be less so in the coming decades. Plus it's not like we've kept the same playbook, let alone playing the same game, all these years. Our immigration policy is far less open, our government makes up a much larger portion of GDP, and our competition is getting better and better.

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.

Red hair or green eyes is actually a very minor quibble in terms of your genetic material.

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?

Perhaps you should refine your statement using standardized mathematical and descriptive concepts. Less than 25 difference in DNA? What does that mean?

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.

It all starts with your parents. They determine where you live, what you eat, who you associate with. Your parents are the gatekeepers to those other outside influences.

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.

I didn't say we should disregard it. Plus I did say we could improve average IQ scores. But there should also be a push to refine the way we measure intelligence. It's almost all based on pattern recognition and arithmetic.

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.

Let's talk about average cases, not outliers. I'm not looking to train a generation of Sergey Brins or Tom Bradys.

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.

Right. But the second generation is often the most well adjusted and educated. If we can find a way to put everybody in the second generation mindset, we're golden.

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?

Perhaps I used the term "sociopath" incorrectly. Even sociopaths care about how people view them (which is why they go to such great lengths to conceal who they really are). Everybody cares about how everybody else views them.

Originally Posted by rapier7

Perhaps you should refine your statement using standardized mathematical and descriptive concepts. Less than 25 difference in DNA? What does that mean?

opps...my bad. Didn't hit the shift key

make that 2% difference.

Originally Posted by rapier7

It all starts with your parents. They determine where you live, what you eat, who you associate with. Your parents are the gatekeepers to those other outside influences.

In an era where most kids spend 5 hours a day in school, be they public or private, from the age of 6 or 7 until 18, they really don't have much say over who you associate with, unless you allow them to.

Originally Posted by rapier7

I didn't say we should disregard it. Plus I did say we could improve average IQ scores. But there should also be a push to refine the way we measure intelligence. It's almost all based on pattern recognition and arithmetic.

I just disagree. I don't think we can or if we can it is only by a few points. I am curious by what evidence you have that we can. And if we can why hasn't it happened. You would think there would be a pretty big market for that.

Originally Posted by rapier7

Let's talk about average cases, not outliers. I'm not looking to train a generation of Sergey Brins or Tom Bradys.

But, that is the point. The average cases are most companies don't make it, let alone are really successful. Why should we think people are going to be any different?

Originally Posted by rapier7

Right. But the second generation is often the most well adjusted and educated. If we can find a way to put everybody in the second generation mindset, we're golden.

So again, your answer is let us create this mold and fit people into a particular way of thinking, acting, & believing. Again, if we do this, why do we think there will be success. If 3rd + generation people are mostly happy and well adjusted in their lives and community, what value does it bring us?

Originally Posted by rapier7

Perhaps I used the term "sociopath" incorrectly. Even sociopaths care about how people view them (which is why they go to such great lengths to conceal who they really are). Everybody cares about how everybody else views them.

No. You use the term correctly. A psychopath "cares" how people view them, a sociopath does not.

A psychopath doesn't know what they are doing isn't socially acceptable. A sociopath knows what they are doing isn't socially acceptable...and just doesn't care.
There is a difference between caring and manipulating/using people into thinking you may be what you are not for your own ends.

Originally Posted by Master Po

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?

Blacks have more fast-twitch muscle than whites, making them better dancers and basketball players.
But they are physically limited in brain size, and therefore intelligence, by their comparatively smaller cranial spaces due to thicker skulls.

Of the four taxa of the the human species:
Americanus were red-skinned, of stubborn character, and angered easily; the Africanus were black-skinned, relaxed, and of negligent character; the Asiaticus race, were yellow-skinned, avaricious, and easily distracted; whereas, unlike the character-imbalanced colored people, the Europeanus were white-skinned, of gentle character, inventive mind, and bellicose; and the Monstrosus were mythologic human sub-races.

Schopenhauer's Explanation:
The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races; and even with many dark peoples, the ruling caste, or race, is fairer in colour than the rest, and has, therefore, evidently immigrated, for example, the Brahmins, the Inca, and the rulers of the South Sea Islands. All this is due to the fact that necessity is the mother of invention, because those tribes that emigrated early to the north, and there gradually became white, had to develop all their intellectual powers, and invent and perfect all the arts in their struggle with need, want, and misery, which, in their many forms, were brought about by the climate. This they had to do in order to make up for the parsimony of nature, and out of it all came their high civilization

I could keep going with more examples of racial anthropology, and how it was proven time and again that "Europeans are the superior race", but really, you're just singing an old tune. One race, because of some difference, is superior in one way or another to other races.

Bring up something new, or GTFO.

This lady has been going around lately on tv and radio trying to ratchet things down a bit. She says some of the things are "tongu-in-cheek".

Originally Posted by hayabusa55

This lady has been going around lately on tv and radio trying to ratchet things down a bit. She says some of the things are "tongu-in-cheek".

But they are. The extremely controversial title was created by a WSJ editor without her input. The excerpt itself, taken out of context of the entire book, is extremely polarizing without proper context. If you read the book (got it today, plan on reading it over the weekend), she actually retreats quite a bit from the parenting style that you read in the article.

Originally Posted by rapier7

But they are. The extremely controversial title was created by a WSJ editor without her input. The excerpt itself, taken out of context of the entire book, is extremely polarizing without proper context. If you read the book (got it today, plan on reading it over the weekend), she actually retreats quite a bit from the parenting style that you read in the article.

But, before you read her book, based on the article you said

Originally Posted by rapier7

Look, I'm not saying she's the perfect parent. Far from it. But her style of parenting is much better than what the average American parent is doing.

and

Originally Posted by rapier7

They practice 3 hours of piano a day, have straight As, and their mother raised them to be polite and respectful of their elders. That seems to be symptoms of hardworking, knowledgeable, and thoughtful people.

and

Originally Posted by rapier7

Chinese parenting would be so much more effective.

and

Originally Posted by rapier7

Wanting somebody talented is symptomatic through her desire to force her kids to practice piano for 3 hours a day. She's writing about her actions. Her motivations are very clear. Again, perhaps you should reread the article:

So now all of a sudden she is retreating from the parenting style in the article, the style you are in favor of. It seems she is not alone in retreating from that style. You really are following her example, aren't you.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

But, before you read her book, based on the article you said

and

and

and


So now all of a sudden she is retreating from the parenting style in the article, the style you are in favor of. It seems she is not alone in retreating from that style. You really are following her example, aren't you.

I still stick by what I wrote. Her parenting is much better. The fact that she retreated a bit (allowing sleepovers, letting the younger sister drop violin in favor of tennis), but I bet she still expects a high level of academic achievement, as well as strong extra curricular activities, even if it's not of her choosing.

I still emphasize academic success over letting a child have too much freedom to "do their thing".

Originally Posted by rapier7

I still stick by what I wrote. Her parenting is much better. The fact that she retreated a bit (allowing sleepovers, letting the younger sister drop violin in favor of tennis), but I bet she still expects a high level of academic achievement, as well as strong extra curricular activities, even if it's not of her choosing.

I still emphasize academic success over letting a child have too much freedom to "do their thing".

So forcing your kid to practice piano 3 hours a day isn't always a symptom of hardworking, knowledgeable, and thoughtful people after all.

What did this mother learn...letting your kid have some say in the westernized parenting concept of "doing their own thing" isn't so bad after all. Perhaps neither is actually superior, and both styles can benefit from understanding the other.

Although you never did answer the question. You used the term sociopath like its a bad thing. What is wrong with taking a fundamentally sociopathic approach to ones relationships to parents, elders, and the beliefs one is raised by?

Originally Posted by rdsesq

Although you never did answer the question. You used the term sociopath like its a bad thing. What is wrong with taking a fundamentally sociopathic approach to ones relationships to parents, elders, and the beliefs one is raised by?

What do you mean?

Originally Posted by rapier7

What do you mean?

If at the end of the day the standardized test scores, degrees, IQ number, and monetary net worth are the measure. Correct?.

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? Does it matter if I have told my parents and elders to f**k off and have flushed the "values and beliefs" the parented in me down the toilet?

If one takes the antithesis of "superior chinese style mothers", one ends at a place of sociopathic view and action. Which is:
"F**k doing what everybody else says you should or are supposed to do. Decide for yourself. Make your own decisions. Make your own mistakes. Live with the consequences of your actions. Own who you are. Decide for yourself."

Does it matter how a person gets there?
If they get there through a sociopathic means that is that not just as valid as if they get there via "superior chinese style mothers"?

Do the ends, justify the means? If so, than the specifics of the means have no meaning.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

If at the end of the day the standardized test scores, degrees, IQ number, and monetary net worth are the measure. Correct?.

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? Does it matter if I have told my parents and elders to f**k off and have flushed the "values and beliefs" the parented in me down the toilet?

If one takes the antithesis of "superior chinese style mothers", one ends at a place of sociopathic view and action. Which is:
"F**k doing what everybody else says you should or are supposed to do. Decide for yourself. Make your own decisions. Make your own mistakes. Live with the consequences of your actions. Own who you are. Decide for yourself."

Does it matter how a person gets there?
If they get there through a sociopathic means that is that not just as valid as if they get there via "superior chinese style mothers"?

Do the ends, justify the means? If so, than the specifics of the means have no meaning.

Anti-social personality disorder is not a good thing that leads to positive outcomes. And "sociopathic" doesn't just mean "fvck what other people say".

Characteristics of people with antisocial personality disorder may include:

• Apparent lack of remorse or empathy for others
• Persistent lying or stealing
• Cruelty to animals
• Poor behavioral controls — expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper
• A history of childhood conduct disorder
• Recurring difficulties with the law
• Promiscuity
• Tendency to violate the boundaries and rights of others
• Aggressive, often violent behavior; prone to getting involved in fights
• Inability to tolerate boredom
• Poor or abusive relationships
• Irresponsible work behavior
• Disregard for safety

Other common characteristics of those with Antisocial Personality Disorder include superficial charm, shallowed emotions, a distorted sense of self, a constant search for new sensations (which can have bizarre consequences), a tendency to physically or verbally abuse peers or relatives, and manipulation of others without remorse or empathy for the victim. Egocentrism, megalomania, lack of responsibility, extroversion, excessive hedonism, high impulsivity, and the desire to experience sensations of control and power can also be present. This type of disorder does not relate to assaults of panic or to schizophrenia.

"Dexter" is not exactly an accurate or valid representation of what anti-social personality disorder is.

You're right to the extent that ruthlessness and focus can be extremely useful traits in business, but if monetary gain and business success are your only indicators of success, then I would say you have an empty life.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

Anti-social personality disorder is not a good thing that leads to positive outcomes. And "sociopathic" doesn't just mean "fvck what other people say".

Well, Let us look at this from the DSM (at least as quoted from Wikipedia)
"DSM

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR = 301.7, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[1]

A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring for as long as either childhood, or in the case of many who are influenced by environmental factors, around age 15, as indicated by three or more of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;

B) The individual is at least 18 years of age.
C) There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode. "

So basically if we take the evidence that crime does pay, as the majority of crimes are never caught, let alone punished. There is nothing wrong with conning people, as the great thing about a con is that the mark is a willing participant, & there is no reason for remorse. One does what one does, and the feelings of other people are their responsibility. To feel remorse is just falling into a "guilt trap".

Now, one can make the argument that teaching kids those three things will likely get them higher standardized test scores and more money in the bank. Since (according to Rapier7's post) that is the goal of parenting. Then teaching children to be sociopaths is just as valid a means of parenting the "superior chinese mother" model. They both end up with the same result.

Isn't raising kids via the sociopath just as good an idea as raising them with "chinese mothers"? If not, why not?

If raising your kids to be sociopaths had a statistically superior outcome in terms of individual academic performance and legal monetary gain, then sure. Right now, I just don't see it. Conning people tends to fall under the "fraud" category of criminal violations.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

Blacks have more fast-twitch muscle than whites, making them better dancers and basketball players.
But they are physically limited in brain size, and therefore intelligence, by their comparatively smaller cranial spaces due to thicker skulls.

Of the four taxa of the the human species:
Americanus were red-skinned, of stubborn character, and angered easily; the Africanus were black-skinned, relaxed, and of negligent character; the Asiaticus race, were yellow-skinned, avaricious, and easily distracted; whereas, unlike the character-imbalanced colored people, the Europeanus were white-skinned, of gentle character, inventive mind, and bellicose; and the Monstrosus were mythologic human sub-races.

Schopenhauer's Explanation:
The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races; and even with many dark peoples, the ruling caste, or race, is fairer in colour than the rest, and has, therefore, evidently immigrated, for example, the Brahmins, the Inca, and the rulers of the South Sea Islands. All this is due to the fact that necessity is the mother of invention, because those tribes that emigrated early to the north, and there gradually became white, had to develop all their intellectual powers, and invent and perfect all the arts in their struggle with need, want, and misery, which, in their many forms, were brought about by the climate. This they had to do in order to make up for the parsimony of nature, and out of it all came their high civilization

I could keep going with more examples of racial anthropology, and how it was proven time and again that "Europeans are the superior race", but really, you're just singing an old tune. One race, because of some difference, is superior in one way or another to other races.

Bring up something new, or GTFO.

You sir, evidently have serious reading comprehension issues.
The quote you cited is from a publication by Carl Linnaeus from the 1700's. That's also the time when the best doctors bled sick people to release the bad blood or demons. They were absolutely serious about it, so it must be true, right? I doubt one can be that obtuse to bring up such theories in a modern discussion. The alternative is that you're a trolling.
I will not bother to debate with you.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

Well, Let us look at this from the DSM (at least as quoted from Wikipedia)
"DSM

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR = 301.7, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[1]

A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring for as long as either childhood, or in the case of many who are influenced by environmental factors, around age 15, as indicated by three or more of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;

B) The individual is at least 18 years of age.
C) There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode. "

So basically if we take the evidence that crime does pay, as the majority of crimes are never caught, let alone punished. There is nothing wrong with conning people, as the great thing about a con is that the mark is a willing participant, & there is no reason for remorse. One does what one does, and the feelings of other people are their responsibility. To feel remorse is just falling into a "guilt trap".

Now, one can make the argument that teaching kids those three things will likely get them higher standardized test scores and more money in the bank. Since (according to Rapier7's post) that is the goal of parenting. Then teaching children to be sociopaths is just as valid a means of parenting the "superior chinese mother" model. They both end up with the same result.

Isn't raising kids via the sociopath just as good an idea as raising them with "chinese mothers"? If not, why not?

One method teaches kids to work hard, be focused on academics (because it's believed that academic success correlates to success in life), not waste time with playing (although I disagree with this one since some of those activities can be social skills development) and find success by playing by the rules (although this is not addressed or implied in the WSJ article, but from my experience).
The other method (as you described it) teaches kids to break laws for personal gains.
Big difference.

This is also the answer to hayabusa's comment

Originally Posted by hayabusa55

If he wants to have sex with his kids, should one also "live and let live"

There's law against that. I'd live and let law enforcement officials handle it.

Originally Posted by Master Po

The other method (as you described it) teaches kids to break laws for personal gains.
Big difference.

Do you always drive the speed limit? Come to a complete stop at every stop sign? Are you 100% on your income taxes? Did you claim that $300 you made at the blackjack table? Did you properly site every reference on every paper you ever did for school?