EPTArticle: "Why Chinese mothers are superior." - Page 24
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
iamho
United States3347 Posts
| ||
|
huameng
United States1133 Posts
On January 11 2011 01:46 Mayfly wrote: Just say IQ and save yourself time in the future. Also, have any of you ever heard of genetics? Upbringing is way, way, way back in importance and has no effect on your character, work ethics, and stuff like that. In other words, letting your children do more of what makes them happy and letting them discover their talents is probably better than the Chinese mother approach. What? You're going to have to cite all those claims, there's no way you can just say "upbringing has no effect on character or work ethic" and leave! And all evidence I've seen that IQ is a strong predictor of success, like The Bell Curve, has been ripped apart as far as I remember. | ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
On January 11 2011 05:20 Cambam wrote: So can anyone link an article showing that laziness and recess and video games leads to more creativity? So can you quote any post actually saying that doing nothing but this leads to more creativity? Are 'torture your kid' and 'always let your kid do whatever he wants' really your only options, the only choices you can make? edit: There are some baseless opinions, for example that about genetics in quote in post above mine. There is a lot of people in this thread though, getting aggravated after reading what seems to them to be 'voices for western style of parenting'. For me those are voicing concern for the girls after reading about obvious abuse and not immediately justifying leniency and whatever else can be applied to "western parenting". | ||
|
-CheekyDuck-
Australia398 Posts
altho the rules differ from household to household, Marks were everything and pysical punishment was common. 95% was a BAD grade unless it was top grade and a lot of my friends would cry over these scores. On the plus side they all have good jobs and still respect and love there parents. One of my cousins was from the same module, it was "study, study, study" he was top of his school, was awared some fancy award from the govt' got a free ride into uni and now works in a law firm. in contrast from my grade the "western" children that had it easy are now "all" in retail. I do agree with the bill gates comments, but sadly this is just how our school system is built, it does not reward our own thinking or creativity, but more copy and paste from memory. im more right brain anyway =P | ||
|
jobiasRKD
United States38 Posts
That said, there's a good idea buried within the author's piles of anecdotal evidence, which is in the form of this line about 1/3 into the article: "Western parents are concerned about their children's psyches. Chinese parents aren't. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently." Even though in the author's case, it resulted in her forcing her daughter to sit in front of the piano and deny her the right to urinate, this core idea has some merit in my opinion. I don't think it's the job of the parent to be a child's eternal cheer squad; sometimes a parent should push their kids hard because they believe the child can be better than they are as long as it's within reason. Clearly this author has missed that last part. | ||
|
xVigilante
46 Posts
To be a real successful person you have to have interest and passion in what your doing. If you love piano and play 5 hours a day, it would be more effective then being forced to play 5 hours a day. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
On January 09 2011 15:15 Blisse wrote: Er, it's 100% when you know the correct answer. It's only chance when you guess. Complain about education, and then fail at it? lol I missed this the first time. Way to be wrong and a gigantic tool at the same time. Very basic test theory: Every test's goal is to maximize its variance in order to distinguish between participants' results as well as possible. By adding a 50% guessing variable into the mix, you not only reduce the average variance of a university test from 0-100% to 50-100%, you also skew the results in favour of the bad and lucky. The less you know, the more you will guess, giving you higher chances of getting answers correct out of sheer luck. I can give you a simple enough example. Student a knows 0% of the questions, student b knows 50%, student C knows 100%. The test has 100 questions. Now, in a test with no randomness factor, student a should get 0 points correct, student b 50 and student c 100. In our actual university test with a 50% guessing chance for each question, student a will on average get 50 (!) questions right, student b will get 75 and student c will get 100. The results don't represent the latent variable (knowledge of the test subject) at all accurately anymore. The results have too little variance, students' results are too close together and the chance factor plays a huge role. edit: And yes I realize you can try to account for the randomness factor, but most of my professors don't seem to feel that's needed. | ||
|
TimmyMac
Canada499 Posts
On January 11 2011 08:11 jobiasRKD wrote: I think the author's methods border on the extreme, and as a child of Chinese parents I'm glad to say that my parents were very supportive of whatever I chose to do, academically-related or not. That said, there's a good idea buried within the author's piles of anecdotal evidence, which is in the form of this line about 1/3 into the article: "Western parents are concerned about their children's psyches. Chinese parents aren't. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently." Even though in the author's case, it resulted in her forcing her daughter to sit in front of the piano and deny her the right to urinate, this core idea has some merit in my opinion. I don't think it's the job of the parent to be a child's eternal cheer squad; sometimes a parent should push their kids hard because they believe the child can be better than they are as long as it's within reason. Clearly this author has missed that last part. This is pretty much the feel-good message I pulled from the article too. High expectations = success Low expectations = failure It's proven again and again, whether the expectations be held by a parent, coach, teacher, or whatever. Genuinely believing a kid has ability/potential always improves their outcome, and is the number one predictor of success. | ||
|
TheDominator
New Zealand336 Posts
You need to experience things such as sleep overs, tv, etc to have a well developed mind. I dont go through this harsh crap and im going to Uni when im 15 (skipping 3 years) and im still top of the class. i also aced last-year-of-high-school maths when i wasn't even in high school. Yes i know that sounds a lot like bragging but im just trying to make a point. My parents do allow me to watch tv and play games, but as many other ppl do, there are a few restrictions to prevent me playing sc2 24/7, but nowhere near as bad as that. However, Im sure that only a minority of parents force their kids to follow all those crazy rules. | ||
|
USApwn
United States81 Posts
My parents allowed me to explore the world and in doing so allowed me to better understand myself and my surroundings. I thank them that they did not raise me in such a brutal manner. Different cultures go through different means to accomplish a common end; to improve. Sometimes those means focus too much on one area, which is what I think this particular Asian family fell victim to. The children have a lot of catching up to do in terms of social milestones that most of us take for granted. | ||
|
Mayfly
145 Posts
On January 11 2011 05:32 huameng wrote: What? You're going to have to cite all those claims, there's no way you can just say "upbringing has no effect on character or work ethic" and leave! And all evidence I've seen that IQ is a strong predictor of success, like The Bell Curve, has been ripped apart as far as I remember. You could look up studies on identical twins and adoptees. To me, saying upbringing is more important than genes is the controversial claim. That IQ correlates with most everything, like future income and even beauty, is a fact that is hard to rip apart. That IQ is inherited is even harder to. There will always be those that disagree, especially when it seems so unfair and inequal. About the Chinese mother approach to upbringing: If that truly explains why Asian-Americans are so successful, then some completely different reason has to be discovered for the success of Jews, since they don't subscribe to those harsh methods. The common denominator between Asian-Americans and Jews is high IQ. | ||
micronesia
United States24698 Posts
On January 11 2011 12:22 Mayfly wrote: You could look up studies on identical twins and adoptees. To me, saying upbringing is more important than genes is the controversial claim. That IQ correlates with most everything, like future income and even beauty, is a fact that is hard to rip apart. That IQ is inherited is even harder to. There will always be those that disagree, especially when it seems so unfair and inequal. About the Chinese mother approach to upbringing: If that truly explains why Asian-Americans are so successful, then some completely different reason has to be discovered for the success of Jews, since they don't subscribe to those harsh methods. The common denominator between Asian-Americans and Jews is high IQ. Maybe because Jews didn't encourage their brightest youths to remain celibate for two millenia... Maybe the predominance of Jewish small business owners for many years instilled cultural values analogous to (but quite different to) the 'Chinese parenting' mentality (also earning the 'cheap' stereotype no doubt). You mentioned identical twins which is indeed a way to try to determine how much a child's future is determined by their upbringing vs genetics... but I can't help but recall learning about the upbringing argument becoming more and more prevalent with each day... maybe it's gone backwards in the past few years since I haven't followed? | ||
|
gen.Sun
United States539 Posts
You should address his point about IQ. If u r a critically thinking person it's important to examine each belief u have scientifically, and not just heed centuries old political mantras about such things as equality. What we know about humans is that we r all very similar. Genetically our differences bten races relatively tiny. But we also know that a difference in even one gene can cause big things, like autism, cancer, extreme altherlitic performance. Intelligence is probably very genetic. Edit. Fuck the iPad keyboard. | ||
|
stalking.d00m
213 Posts
"If a Chinese child gets a B—which would never happen—there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A." This was the most groundless stereotyping assumption I have read in quite a while. But then again, what can we expect from the author of "World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability". Also, I believe misguided nationalism is making China more and more Facist like WW2 Germany. Definition of Facism "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
On January 11 2011 12:43 micronesia wrote: Maybe because Jews didn't encourage their brightest youths to remain celibate for two millenia... Maybe the predominance of Jewish small business owners for many years instilled cultural values analogous to (but quite different to) the 'Chinese parenting' mentality (also earning the 'cheap' stereotype no doubt). You mentioned identical twins which is indeed a way to try to determine how much a child's future is determined by their upbringing vs genetics... but I can't help but recall learning about the upbringing argument becoming more and more prevalent with each day... maybe it's gone backwards in the past few years since I haven't followed? Genetics account for 50-60% of IQ. Genetics are very important (more so than for many other traits), but so are environmental factors. edit: I'm not pulling this number out of my ass btw, it's from my uni textbook for developmental psychology. :p It's still a relatively rough estimate though. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10345 Posts
| ||
|
heroyi
United States1064 Posts
On January 11 2011 13:23 Orome wrote: Genetics account for 50-60% of IQ. Genetics are very important (more so than for many other traits), but so are environmental factors. agreed. Intelligence is made by genetics and the individual. | ||
|
MuffinDude
United States3837 Posts
On January 11 2011 11:29 Orome wrote: lol I missed this the first time. Way to be wrong and a gigantic tool at the same time. Very basic test theory: Every test's goal is to maximize its variance in order to distinguish between participants' results as well as possible. By adding a 50% guessing variable into the mix, you not only reduce the average variance of a university test from 0-100% to 50-100%, you also skew the results in favour of the bad and lucky. The less you know, the more you will guess, giving you higher chances of getting answers correct out of sheer luck. I can give you a simple enough example. Student a knows 0% of the questions, student b knows 50%, student C knows 100%. The test has 100 questions. Now, in a test with no randomness factor, student a should get 0 points correct, student b 50 and student c 100. In our actual university test with a 50% guessing chance for each question, student a will on average get 50 (!) questions right, student b will get 75 and student c will get 100. The results don't represent the latent variable (knowledge of the test subject) at all accurately anymore. The results have too little variance, students' results are too close together and the chance factor plays a huge role. edit: And yes I realize you can try to account for the randomness factor, but most of my professors don't seem to feel that's needed. The whole point is that people who know more generally do better? Yes? o_O And why would you even aim for a F on a test, which is what you'll get if probability all goes well and you get the 50% mark. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
On January 11 2011 13:53 MuffinDude wrote: I just think the culture is too different. Asians stress academics much more important than Western race, thats why we are called the "Model Minority." The whole point is that people who know more generally do better? Yes? o_O Not sure if you actually read my post, the point is with a system like that, people who know more will still do better than people who know less, but less so than if it were a fair system. The grades get compressed to mediocre - excellent instead of very bad - excellent. | ||
|
lolrider
United States12 Posts
| ||
| ||
