Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Chinese Mothers are Not Superior (from a female Chinese engineer)

jeanhsu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–217 of 217 posts

Re: Why Chinese Mothers are Not Superior (from a female Chinese engineer)

#211

Post by slowpoison »

Confusion wrote: post #62
lionhearted wrote: post #46

A contrary viewpoint: After studying a number of different cultures and backgrounds and histories, I'm generally an admirer of the school of parenting laid out by Chua. Well, I think some of the more insulting/demeaning/negative-reinforcement isn't so great, but the overall focus on achievement and duty as superior to having fun... I do respect that. I'll explain why - I used to think the opposite until I read Andre…

The plural of anecdote is not data. The story about Agassi is nice, but a red herring. Most people do not succeed in such a spectacular way. They remain mediocre and still 'hate tennis and their father'. A prime example are Chinese olympic teams. If you've seen the documentary about the rowing team, hand-picked, drilled in military style and note they still losing to Western teams, you can be nothing but sad for them…

Totally agree.

Just pushing your kids to be #1 at something is like designing a system with a single point of failure. What if the kid is not able to achieve it? Obviously, with a large population striving to achieve the same thing, there will be failures. What would you do then?

Instead, parents should concentrate on raising stable, open and mature children. Children, who as adults, develop a good sense of discrimination and discretion. Children, who know that failure is a part of life and they better learn from their mistakes. Children who realize that not everybody can be #1, but it's still worth trying. Children who appreciate the journey, and not just fret over the destination.

Re: Why Chinese Mothers are Not Superior (from a female Chinese engineer)

#212

Post by vacri »

klenwell wrote: post #146
vacri wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parents have a mere 0-10% influence over a child's development? Clear delusion there, farcical right on the face of it. One wonders if you get any social development done at all before you significantly interact with a peer group using that formula. Here's a simple example: language. Pretty much everyone learns the basics of language from their parents before they toddle off to anything representing a peer group. Gen…

Pinker puts the number around 10% as I remember. And, yes, he's aware of all the qualifications that attend such a crude number. The ability to talk is obviously a significant trait. But it is not an extraordinary one. Everybody uses language in some form (a subject in which Pinker is strongly versed.) What language you speak is decidedly less significant and something most parents don't get to choose. I'd be surpris…

My point with language was it's simply an obvious one. There are a great many traits from our parents that affect us strongly on a subconscious level.

Besides, saying "yeah, we have parents, but we all end up the same regardless" is a total cop-out when you turn around and say "yeah, we have genes, but they count for a wild fluctuation of 50% - far more important in the development than any other factor". Which is odd. We all have eyes. Arms. Legs. Lungs. Run, walk, cry, think, breathe, eat, excrete, suffer cold and hot. If you're trying to paint this theoretical 100% influence total as "that which makes us individual from each other", then it's farcical to say "parents don't count because we all end up with the basics" but somehow genes get special treatment. The fact that some of us have red hair and some don't doesn't count for 50% of our individuality.

If such minor differences between people really counted for 50% of our differentiation, then there'd be far more homogeneity in personality for people of average height, average build, and average attractiveness. Those numbers are simply plucked from the air.

Re: Why Chinese Mothers are Not Superior (from a female Chinese engineer)

#213

Post by vacri »

metageek wrote: post #165
kapilkaisare wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am trying to fit this in with what I've seen in college and at work. I attended computer engineering college in India, and here it gets extremely competitive. You've got gazillions of students fighting over a college seat not because they love programming or because they love software, but because being a computer engineer is key to financial success. So, they slog over their grade 12 scores and IIT-JEEs and CETs,…

> Once they get into college, it's all about getting 'distinctions' - grades higher than 66%. 66% correct, or 66th percentile? At every school I went to, 66% correct would be a failing grade.

A cutoff of 66% has nothing to do with the complexity of the marking requirements nor any standardisation done.

Re: Why Chinese Mothers are Not Superior (from a female Chinese engineer)

#215

Post by metageek »

vacri wrote: post #213
metageek wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once they get into college, it's all about getting 'distinctions' - grades higher than 66%. 66% correct, or 66th percentile? At every school I went to, 66% correct would be a failing grade.

A cutoff of 66% has nothing to do with the complexity of the marking requirements nor any standardisation done.

I didn't say it did. It's just surprising to see that much of a difference, regardless of the cause.

Re: Why Chinese Mothers are Not Superior (from a female Chinese engineer)

#216

Post by nocman »

stuartk wrote: post #133
nocman wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to know more specifically the choice of acceptable instruments. My observation is that the choices of piano and violin are not limited to Asian families (at least, not in the US). There seems to be a link between people who wish to foster academic excellence in their children, and the choice to have them play piano and/or violin. I'd be interested to know if anyone here has any insights as to why those parti…

Did a quick search and found this: http://www.asian-central.com/stuffasianpeoplelike/2008/03/17... Essentially, they are seen as the most 'refined' instruments to learn and play. The piano is chosen as you need to learn both treble and bass clef to play, the violin because they are portable and light enough for very young children to hold. From tfa.

OK, well that might explain the Asian preference. But I'd like to hear from a source that is not explicitly Asian (since I've seen the same choices in many non-Asian groups).

Re: Why Chinese Mothers are Not Superior (from a female Chinese engineer)

#217

Post by billybob »

Retric wrote: post #137
khafra wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should leave in the "fuck you". Only if he'd say it to lionhearted in person, over a dinner conversation, per the HN etiquette guide. He's certainly within his rights to feel strongly about this, and to convey his belief in the harm caused by the demanding, uncompromising style of child-rearing; but there should be a way to do that with a modicum of tact.

I did not see the original format, but I have seen "You know what, fuck you!" said over the dinner table in such a situation. A short expletive is IMO appropriate for denoting intense emotional reaction. It would seem odd if someone said "wow, this hurts would you mind backing your car off my leg" to the point where you might wonder if you had actually driven over them. However, "Back your @#%$ car off my #%^@&^ leg…

So you're saying that one can't express strong emotions in writing without swearing?
Post reply on HN