The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
But you don't get awards for disobeying orders, which means that even distinguished combatants operate within a clear system of rules. Furthermore, you aren't going to get an award for doing something that isn't consistent with the goals of the armed forces, which means behavior that is truly independent of the system is either unnoticed or discouraged.
Ultimately, being a soldier is about following orders.
Ehhhh
You're mostly right about combatants needing to be able to follow orders without hesitating as well as people who work in dangerous conditions. And really, that's certainly drilled in to everyone to at least some degree. It's a necessary requirement given the job. But critical thinking and independent thought aren't discouraged either. Generally the opposite in my experience. If someone's able to find better ways to solve problems, increase efficiency, or just make things generally nicer, it's highly encouraged and usually rewarded in some fashion.
But was it waste? I mean, these things obviously weren't a passion for these kids, they gave them up. But imagine if you were one of these kids. You just spent 5-10 years of your life doing something you didn't really enjoy - and became fucking awesome at it. Tell me that experience isn't valuable.
Depends on what the value of the experience was. I mean how do you control for the outcome of failures?
The experience is doing something you dislike for years and years on end, but ultimately earning competency and even some degree of accomplishment. It's a tangible personal example of the cliche, success takes hard work, and something the person can draw on when they set out to accomplish something they do want to accomplish.
I'm not sure what you mean by controlling for failure. Asian parents always push their kids to "be the best", which is clearly impossible. Failure is inevitable, if not constant. So what the system inevitably means is that you must always be striving and never too satisfied with what you've achieved.
TechBoy on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I would have much rather become awesome at something I enjoyed.
That would definitely be the ideal, but honestly at 7 did you enjoy what you do now? Did you even have an inkling?
Might as push your kids to be awesome in something. If they hate it at least they know one path to success.
Kinda? There were certainly areas I wouldn't have minded being pushed in, and certain areas I got pushed in that I rather wouldn't have.
I was always into music and art as far back as I can remember, and was roundly shut down anytime I asked to expand that scope. I was also into archeology and dentistry, which I also got shut down on. My parents were kind of myopic dicks, just not quite in the same way Tiger Moms are. They were just seriously concerned with my ability to be a financially-independent adult. They always said that anything I wanted to study AFTER I became that was fair game.
Though now that I'm a gainfully-employed adult, I have neither the energy or free time that I did when I was a kid. So sucks to that.
the first step towards having resolution with emotional issues definitely isn't "Asians just don't talk about their problems, accept my culture!!!" I mean, i get the feeling that some of this is just way beyond your comprehension because you've just accepted emotional abuse under the guise of parenting to be an acceptable status quo.
except, i didnt have a tiger mom... nor is asian culture mine... my wife is japanese though if that makes you feel better.
i still dont think any of your studies show any kind of "mental disorder".
the first step towards having resolution with emotional issues definitely isn't "Asians just don't talk about their problems, accept my culture!!!" I mean, i get the feeling that some of this is just way beyond your comprehension because you've just accepted emotional abuse under the guise of parenting to be an acceptable status quo.
except, i didnt have a tiger mom... nor is asian culture mine... my wife is japanese though if that makes you feel better.
i still dont think any of your studies show any kind of "mental disorder".
Do you believe that the whole tiger-mom phenomenon - demanding excellence in exchange for love, basically - is a viable way of teaching a child how to maintain personal relationships? Or do you agree that it's a terrible means of teaching kids how to interact with others, but it doesn't matter because YAY VIOLIN?
Do you plan on raising your own kids in this manner? Do you think it's superior to not acting like a sociopath towards your children? I'm kinda curious as to your stance, here.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I would have much rather become awesome at something I enjoyed.
That would definitely be the ideal, but honestly at 7 did you enjoy what you do now? Did you even have an inkling?
Might as push your kids to be awesome in something. If they hate it at least they know one path to success.
Kinda? There were certainly areas I wouldn't have minded being pushed in, and certain areas I got pushed in that I rather wouldn't have.
I was always into music and art as far back as I can remember, and was roundly shut down anytime I asked to expand that scope. I was also into archeology and dentistry, which I also got shut down on. My parents were kind of myopic dicks, just not quite in the same way Tiger Moms are. They were just seriously concerned with my ability to be a financially-independent adult. They always said that anything I wanted to study AFTER I became that was fair game.
Though now that I'm a gainfully-employed adult, I have neither the energy or free time that I did when I was a kid. So sucks to that.
I think you're giving yourself too much of a hard time over maybes. I mean sure, if your parents had heavily pushed you in say archeology, maybe you'd be a literal modern day Indiana Jones and extremely satisfied with your life. But on the other hand maybe you would have found out the actual practice wasn't as interesting as the idea and grown to resent your parents for killing your dream.
I went through a similar thing, where I had phases where I would be obsessed over penguins, then sharks, then dinosaurs, and then computers. Trying to read as much as I could about them, learning as much as I could. My parents also pretty much didn't give a crap about that stuff. Get good grades! You need them to get a good job, that's what matters.
And so I slaved away for grades, and slowly the other interests just kind of faded away. I mean I'll always think penguins, sharks, and dinosaurs are cool, and sometime I wonder about being an ornithologist, or an ichthyologist, or a paleontologist. But I honestly don't have a huge interest in learning more about those things. I've got new interests, new things that I want to learn about and skills to get good at. And I think that's how it is in most people's lives. We grow and change, and often the things we loved as kids are just that: Things we loved as kids. They don't have to be more than that.
TechBoy on
0
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
But was it waste? I mean, these things obviously weren't a passion for these kids, they gave them up. But imagine if you were one of these kids. You just spent 5-10 years of your life doing something you didn't really enjoy - and became fucking awesome at it. Tell me that experience isn't valuable.
Depends on what the value of the experience was. I mean how do you control for the outcome of failures?
The experience is doing something you dislike for years and years on end, but ultimately earning competency and even some degree of accomplishment. It's a tangible personal example of the cliche, success takes hard work, and something the person can draw on when they set out to accomplish something they do want to accomplish.
I'm not sure what you mean by controlling for failure. Asian parents always push their kids to "be the best", which is clearly impossible. Failure is inevitable, if not constant. So what the system inevitably means is that you must always be striving and never too satisfied with what you've achieved.
Controlling for failure is like this; is there a safety net below you when you fail or disgust from your parents when you fail to attain the highest standards.
To change discussion up a bit, what effect do you expect Chua's book to have on the development of her children? Will it be a flash in the pan and swiftly forgotten, or is it going to enhance or diminish either daughter's prospects for college and beyond?
My impression is that her daughters' accomplishments will be devalued as they're attributed to the strength and severity of Chua's parenting rather than the talent and dedication of the girls. By glorifying herself, Chua has made us less inclined to think there's anything special about her daughters. Since the entire point of all this was for Chua's daughters to distinguish themselves as exceptional young girls, the publication of Chua's book actually undermines the goals described within the book's pages.
flash in the pan to be swiftly forgotten. i think time got it right when they said that the book just struck a nerve with us because of how well shanghainese students performed when compared with everyone else, especially americans.
the first step towards having resolution with emotional issues definitely isn't "Asians just don't talk about their problems, accept my culture!!!" I mean, i get the feeling that some of this is just way beyond your comprehension because you've just accepted emotional abuse under the guise of parenting to be an acceptable status quo.
except, i didnt have a tiger mom... nor is asian culture mine... my wife is japanese though if that makes you feel better.
i still dont think any of your studies show any kind of "mental disorder".
Do you believe that the whole tiger-mom phenomenon - demanding excellence in exchange for love, basically - is a viable way of teaching a child how to maintain personal relationships? Or do you agree that it's a terrible means of teaching kids how to interact with others, but it doesn't matter because YAY VIOLIN?
Do you plan on raising your own kids in this manner? Do you think it's superior to not acting like a sociopath towards your children? I'm kinda curious as to your stance, here.
having never read the book, i think that a lot of what the time article said regarding her book made sense to me.
i assume strength, not fragility in my child. i expect excellence. the article itself didnt say anything about demanding excellence in exchange for love, but i have nothing against having high expectations for my child(ren), even extremely high expectations.
again, since i havent read the book, i cant comment on the details. but i do think most parents in the u.s. are far too lax with their children. like, far, far, far too lax. and this idea that you are a special snowflake no matter how poorly you perform is also not something i love.
i definitely subscribe to the ideal of hard work. i dont think hard work equates to success, but i do think success is impossible without it. necessary, but not sufficient.
im going to tell my kids that they better get a's in all their classes, just like my mom told me. i dont think that makes me a tiger dad (or my mom a tiger mom). i think it just means that many (most?) kids do actually live up to their parents' expectations.
Ketherial on
0
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
im going to tell my kids that they better get a's in all their classes, just like my mom told me. i dont think that makes me a tiger dad (or my mom a tiger mom). i think it just means that many (most?) kids do actually live up to their parents' expectations.
But was it waste? I mean, these things obviously weren't a passion for these kids, they gave them up. But imagine if you were one of these kids. You just spent 5-10 years of your life doing something you didn't really enjoy - and became fucking awesome at it. Tell me that experience isn't valuable.
Depends on what the value of the experience was. I mean how do you control for the outcome of failures?
The experience is doing something you dislike for years and years on end, but ultimately earning competency and even some degree of accomplishment. It's a tangible personal example of the cliche, success takes hard work, and something the person can draw on when they set out to accomplish something they do want to accomplish.
I'm not sure what you mean by controlling for failure. Asian parents always push their kids to "be the best", which is clearly impossible. Failure is inevitable, if not constant. So what the system inevitably means is that you must always be striving and never too satisfied with what you've achieved.
Controlling for failure is like this; is there a safety net below you when you fail or disgust from your parents when you fail to attain the highest standards.
Well, your parents are still going to feed you, clothe you, give you shelter. They're not going to like let you die for failing. It's more or less they will let you know how extremely disappointed they are in you, and maybe take away something you want (TV, computer, playdates, etc.) or give you some other kind of punishment for a while.
I mean it sounds pretty fucking insane, especially if the "failure" is like something minor like a B on the report card, or like 3rd place at some prestigious competition that most aren't even good enough to compete in. It's sounds like downright barbaric parenting, and most of the time it is. But I think there's actually a time this can be a reasonable tactic.
Presumably Chua's parents were just as harsh on her, and she turned out to be a Yale professor. Highly successful by any metric, clearly her parents parenting succeeded. She tried to parent in the same manner on her own children. They rebelled and her parenting became highly destructive to their relationship. Why?
I think it had to do with the fact that Chua's parents were immigrants. They made huge sacrifices to be in this country and raise her. Chua talks about how her father wore the same shoes for 8 years, presumably they weren't very wealthy. I think kids can pick up on context like this. Context matters. When Chua messed up and her parents called her "garbage", the unspoken subtext was "We made so many sacrifices to be here, to give you an opportunity to succeed, all we want is A's on your report card and you can't even do that?" In that context, "garbage" isn't a cruel attack. It is a statement that you really have underperformed, and something that the child finds unpleasant, but not malicious. A sign that they need to do better.
Chua tried to use the same tactics on her children, but failed because the context is completely different. Chua's family is quite wealthy, her pushing her daughters to an extreme degree won't be seen by them as something necessary to their success and prosperity. It will be seen only for the surface meaning. Do well to make me proud. And I think that can only motivate a child so far.
TechBoy on
0
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
But was it waste? I mean, these things obviously weren't a passion for these kids, they gave them up. But imagine if you were one of these kids. You just spent 5-10 years of your life doing something you didn't really enjoy - and became fucking awesome at it. Tell me that experience isn't valuable.
Depends on what the value of the experience was. I mean how do you control for the outcome of failures?
The experience is doing something you dislike for years and years on end, but ultimately earning competency and even some degree of accomplishment. It's a tangible personal example of the cliche, success takes hard work, and something the person can draw on when they set out to accomplish something they do want to accomplish.
I'm not sure what you mean by controlling for failure. Asian parents always push their kids to "be the best", which is clearly impossible. Failure is inevitable, if not constant. So what the system inevitably means is that you must always be striving and never too satisfied with what you've achieved.
Controlling for failure is like this; is there a safety net below you when you fail or disgust from your parents when you fail to attain the highest standards.
Well, your parents are still going to feed you, clothe you, give you shelter. They're not going to like let you die for failing. It's more or less they will let you know how extremely disappointed they are in you, and maybe take away something you want (TV, computer, playdates, etc.) or give you some other kind of punishment for a while.
I mean it sounds pretty fucking insane, especially if the "failure" is like something minor like a B on the report card, or like 3rd place at some prestigious competition that most aren't even good enough to compete in. It's sounds like downright barbaric parenting, and most of the time it is. But I think there's actually a time this can be a reasonable tactic.
Presumable Chua's parents were just as harsh on her, and she turned out to be a Yale professor. Highly successful by any metric, clearly her parents parenting succeeded. She tried to parent in the same manner on her own children. They rebelled and her parenting became highly destructive to their relationship. Why?
I think it had to do with the fact that Chua's parents were immigrants. They made huge sacrifices to be in this country and raise her. Chua talks about how her father wore the same shoes for 8 years, presumably they weren't very wealthy. I think kids can pick up on context like this. Context matters. When Chua messed up and her parents called her "garbage", the unspoken subtext was "We made so many sacrifices to be here, to give you an opportunity to succeed, all we want is A's on your report card and you can't even do that?" In that context, "garbage" isn't a cruel attack. It is a statement that you really have underperformed, and something that the child finds unpleasant, but not malicious. A sign that they need to do better.
Chua tried to use the same tactics on her children, but failed because the context is completely different. Chua's family is quite wealthy, her pushing her daughters to an extreme degree won't be seen by them as something necessary to their success and prosperity. It will be seen only for the surface meaning. Do well to make me proud. And I think that can only motivate a child so far.
Well this is something that I alluded to. People that arent fully integrated to American culture seemingly can sustain a more emotionally hostile environment with less observable downside. I think that the more immersed American you are, the less you see the less a sink or swim mentality grabs you, especially in light of the ample experience you can draw from your peers where most of us just float at different levels.
And really a lot of this whole debate just comes down to parental projection from an immigrant family.
If you call anything your children do garbage that's fine with me, as long as your not offended when they literally dance and then piss on your grave. I don't think either action is justifiable with context.
i assume strength, not fragility in my child. i expect excellence. the article itself didnt say anything about demanding excellence in exchange for love, but i have nothing against having high expectations for my child(ren), even extremely high expectations.
Define "extremely high expectations". Do you expect that your child should be awesome at anything he tries to do? Do you expect this to be the case for any given child in any given discipline?
again, since i havent read the book, i cant comment on the details. but i do think most parents in the u.s. are far too lax with their children. like, far, far, far too lax. and this idea that you are a special snowflake no matter how poorly you perform is also not something i love.
There is middle ground between "you are a special snowflake and are awesome even if you get straight Fs" and "Fuck you if you can't play a perfect concerto," you know.
i definitely subscribe to the ideal of hard work. i dont think hard work equates to success, but i do think success is impossible without it. necessary, but not sufficient.
Sure. But you seem to believe that anyone can achieve anything with sufficient hard work. You also seem to think that anything that can be achieved is worth achieving. I question both those premises.
im going to tell my kids that they better get a's in all their classes, just like my mom told me. i dont think that makes me a tiger dad (or my mom a tiger mom). i think it just means that many (most?) kids do actually live up to their parents' expectations.
I don't know dick about you, or whatever sort of progeny you will foist upon this world. So I don't know if "you better get straight As or else, mister!" is even remotely reasonable for you. But I can certainly say that in general, it is neither a reasonable nor desirable goal. While American high school academia isn't exactly the most challenging thing out there, demanding nigh-perfection from your children is pretty fucking retarded, when you're going sight-unseen here.
Okay, let's use a concrete example.
We all know I love to talk about my daughter, because she is objectively awesome. So let's talk about her. She is a fairly brilliant little 6 year old girl, taught herself to read at 3, now reads at a fifth grade level, very skilled at artwork, excellent at math. She's extremely engaged in school, her teachers all love her, she has lots of friends. Pretty much a dream kid, here.
Now she's at a Montessori school, so the grading system is a little skewed. They don't really have A's there. But they do have a grading system of sorts, and she would have something probably akin to 95% A's and a few B+'s.
Apparently, though, this is not good enough. Because she "better" get straight A's. So first of all, what should her punishment be? And second, please explain the real-world benefits that she would gain by doing whatever is necessary to gain those few remaining A's.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And honestly, there's some truth to the "special snowflake" thing. Because every kid is unique. And as such, they respond to different stimuli in different ways. While a stern and demanding attitude and rejection of anything less than excellence may work with some kids (for certain definitions of "work"), it sure as fuck isn't going to work on every kid.
Children aren't infinitely malleable clones that can be tailored to whatever you want them to be.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
And honestly, there's some truth to the "special snowflake" thing. Because every kid is unique. And as such, they respond to different stimuli in different ways. While a stern and demanding attitude and rejection of anything less than excellence may work with some kids (for certain definitions of "work"), it sure as fuck isn't going to work on every kid.
Children aren't infinitely malleable clones that can be tailored to whatever you want them to be.
The whole thing about asserting the individuality in a child isn't to make them think they're above anything or anyone. That's kinda lost when individuality and autonomy get derisive terms like special snowflake.
mrt144 on
0
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Apparently, though, this is not good enough. Because she "better" get straight A's. So first of all, what should her punishment be? And second, please explain the real-world benefits that she would gain by doing whatever is necessary to gain those few remaining A's.
To wit, what if this means they cheat to get A's and get away with it?
[QUOTE=ElJeffe;18330273Sure. But you seem to believe that anyone can achieve anything with sufficient hard work. You also seem to think that anything that can be achieved is worth achieving. I question both those premises.
[/QUOTE]
I completely agree with the rest of your post. But I do think that there's a lot of truth to this. Natural talent seems far less important in determining someone's skill level than just how many hours they've practiced it. It's really rare for someone to put in massive amounts of time practicing something, and not become really good at it.
I was forced to play the piano from the age of 4 to 12. I finished the RSM Grade 8, which is the highest taught level, and the moment I got away to boarding school I never touched the instrument again.
Honestly, a few circumstances can make the piano a horrible instrument to learn.
Between the ages of 4 and 18 my Taiwanese mother taught me to play piano (okay, that would be marginally inaccurate, because my mother didn't know how to play it either, so she relied on teachers earlier on and then basically ordered me to play songs after I had gotten through the basics).
Putting aside the fact that I didn't like it personally, I lived in seven different countries in the same time period. A $4000 upright piano is not an idea instrument for someone on the move. And while my mother tried hard to buy or rent a piano every place we lived, there just aren't that many places to find a piano Sumatran farm country.
So, like everyone else, when I went to college, I never touched a piano again. Couldn't very well keep one in my dorm, and I wasn't majoring in music.
...not a good instrument. I mean, to force your child to play a musical instrument against their will for a decade or so as a demonstration of your unquestionable authority is one thing, but pick a goddamn suitable instrument.
I don't want to extend this quote tree any longer :P
@ Keth: Nowhere did I say that this parenting style itself constituted some sort of mental disorder in Chinese children. I said that this parenting style contributes to the formation of mental disorders such as depression and general anxiety in these children (or more specifically, their culturally salient equivalents).
I mean, children should learn to read and write and do math before six, but if you have to force children to do shit then you're parenting wrong.
If they don't like your explanation for what you ask of them, then you ask them to do it as a favor to you, with the implication that there are rewards for success, and that you don't get rewarded for sitting on your ass.
The sole fucking role of a parent is to teach. If people don't understand that they are making a blob of flesh into a sentient being through WORDS ALOOOONE, then they don't deserve to be a parent.
The crazy thing is that the United States isn't even that high in carb consumption per capita. We just tend to overeat, period.
We overeat because our food is garbage and it doesn't fucking feed us.
We have put an entire fucking generation of children on pills because we're too fucking stupid to realize that HUNGER DISTRACTS PEOPLE. We're too fucking stupid to even consider it.
Also, there are a lot of other sports that you can get a fucking scholarship from, not just foot/base/basketball. Fuck, my cousin got into Harvard because he knew how to bowl.
Also, there are a lot of other sports that you can get a fucking scholarship from, not just foot/base/basketball. Fuck, my cousin got into Harvard because he knew how to bowl.
I'd consider that more a sad statement on the US educational system then a reason to diversify your child's experiences.
shryke on
0
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
Erich Zahn is mad bro
mrt144 on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
[QUOTE=ElJeffe;18330273Sure. But you seem to believe that anyone can achieve anything with sufficient hard work. You also seem to think that anything that can be achieved is worth achieving. I question both those premises.
I completely agree with the rest of your post. But I do think that there's a lot of truth to this. Natural talent seems far less important in determining someone's skill level than just how many hours they've practiced it. It's really rare for someone to put in massive amounts of time practicing something, and not become really good at it.[/QUOTE]
I would still agree with Jeff. While things like repitition and muscle memory certainly will give a person an edge over those without those things, they're still going to be far behind those who both work hard AND have a natural affinity.
Myself, for example. I literally cannot perform math in my head. Can't do it. Not even fairly simplistic addition or subtraction. However, thanks to years of school, give me piece of paper and a calculator and I'm freaking aces; I nearly aced the SAT math section. But my brain literally is incapable of solving simple equations that small children can do without thinking.
And again, to what end is this mastery? I posit that any lesson re: work ethic or diligence that might be learned by a childhood crammed with study to achieve mastery of randomly-chosen subjects will probably be nullified when that child comes to realize they hate what they're doing and loathe their parents for forcing it upon them. Few people are going to say, "God, I hate how my parents destroyed my childhood by forcing me into being a concert pianist. I gave that shit up the minute I could. But hey, at least I learned valuable lessons in hard work! And I'm a hit at parties! Or would be, if I had friends that invited me to things like parties . . . ."
Far too many parents (including my own grandparents) try to instill the message that anyone can be or do anything with enough determination and work, yet there's a flipside to that that never gets mentioned, which is the effect such dedication will have on any other plans you might have.
Personally, I don't want to be externally defined by my level of acheivement or job title. I know too many successful people with families who hate them to fall into that trap, including my father-in-law.
Sure. But you seem to believe that anyone can achieve anything with sufficient hard work. You also seem to think that anything that can be achieved is worth achieving. I question both those premises.
I completely agree with the rest of your post. But I do think that there's a lot of truth to this. Natural talent seems far less important in determining someone's skill level than just how many hours they've practiced it. It's really rare for someone to put in massive amounts of time practicing something, and not become really good at it.
I would still agree with Jeff. While things like repitition and muscle memory certainly will give a person an edge over those without those things, they're still going to be far behind those who both work hard AND have a natural affinity.
Myself, for example. I literally cannot perform math in my head. Can't do it. Not even fairly simplistic addition or subtraction. However, thanks to years of school, give me piece of paper and a calculator and I'm freaking aces; I nearly aced the SAT math section. But my brain literally is incapable of solving simple equations that small children can do without thinking.
I don't know, maybe you do have a specific barrier towards arithmatic. But it sounds like you're actually a good example of the practice-makes-perfect model, because you aced the SAT math with no natural affinity, just a lot of schooling and practice.
Have you ever read Outliers? It does a pretty good job of demonstrating scientifically that having lots of practice (specifically, the right kind of practice with a good teacher) is much more powerful than natural talent.
And again, to what end is this mastery? I posit that any lesson re: work ethic or diligence that might be learned by a childhood crammed with study to achieve mastery of randomly-chosen subjects will probably be nullified when that child comes to realize they hate what they're doing and loathe their parents for forcing it upon them. Few people are going to say, "God, I hate how my parents destroyed my childhood by forcing me into being a concert pianist. I gave that shit up the minute I could. But hey, at least I learned valuable lessons in hard work! And I'm a hit at parties! Or would be, if I had friends that invited me to things like parties . . . ."
Far too many parents (including my own grandparents) try to instill the message that anyone can be or do anything with enough determination and work, yet there's a flipside to that that never gets mentioned, which is the effect such dedication will have on any other plans you might have.
Personally, I don't want to be externally defined by my level of acheivement or job title. I know too many successful people with families who hate them to fall into that trap, including my father-in-law.
Totally agree with this. Playing the piano for thousands of hours will make you a good piano player, but not much else (although it made me completely kick ass at Guitar Hero). That's why kids should be given a broad range of experiences, so that if they do pick something to completely focus on they'll know what they're giving up, too.
I also agree that I hate the way so many people get defined and pigeonholed by their job title. There's more to life than just a job, dammit.
Pi-r8 on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I also agree that I hate the way so many people get defined and pigeonholed by their job title. There's more to life than just a job, dammit.
Conversely, I know way too many people who think their advanced title entitle them to acting like total asshole, from some of the dickwad doctors I've worked with to the college professors who insist upon being called "doctor."
Because bitch please, you're a doctor of marketing studies. No one is looking for you when the guy next to your table at the restaurant has a heart attack.
Have you ever read Outliers? It does a pretty good job of demonstrating scientifically that having lots of practice (specifically, the right kind of practice with a good teacher) is much more powerful than natural talent.
I don't disagree with that theory at all, but what I was alluding to was the fact that as far as "ultimate" mastery goes, the winners will almost always been those with a combination of work ethic AND natural affinity.
Anybody want my 0.02 cents on this? Of Course you do!
Since everybody else is tossing around anecdotes, I will give you mine:
I have Lower grade Cerebral Palsy. It means that I have slightly reduced upper body strenght and reduced fine motor skills in my hands and fingers. This means that writing is severly difficult for me, since writing is fine motor skills. Even computers do not mitigate the problem completly. As for Musical instruments like the violin, the guitar and the Piano... Are you shitting me? It was only in high school when I was allowed to take my exams verbally that my grades matched my abilities(talking straight Ds to Straight As).
Thing is you can't really diagnose my kind of problem at a young age. After all; Lack of fine motor skills, short attention span and difficulty learning to read are the hallmarks of small children. Now imagine forcing a small child with ADD, ADHD, Dyslexia or CP to learn the violin/piano and demanding they get straight As in school. You have crossed the line from ambitous parent straight into abusive parent. Worst of all when your kid reacts to your abuse, you call him lazy?
Because I refuse to believe that Asian kids have less ADD/ADHD/Dyslexia then the rest of the world.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
there's something to be said for self motivation. Tiger moms make me wary because I've found that these super achievers either need mom to continue putting pressure on them or they fall to pieces.
I would also argue that a small amount of tv is necessary tobecome properly socialized
there's something to be said for self motivation. Tiger moms make me wary because I've found that these super achievers either need mom to continue putting pressure on them or they fall to pieces.
I would also argue that a small amount of tv is necessary tobecome properly socialized
If you mean TV is required for kids to participate in the shared pop culture that comprises so much of childhood socialization, then yeah.
Of course, I never really considered TV to be the corrupting influence others do. Both my kids actually learned a ton of stuff from watching television. My daughter developed an interest in foreign languages from watching Dora the Explorer and Ni Hao, Kai-Lan, and my son is learning color theory from some... thing called Bubble Guppies. The shows can make learning fun in a way that a parent with flash cards (or whatever) can't, at least not as easily.
This presumes, though, that your kid isn't watching stuff like Spongebob and Scooby-Doo. (Though my daughter is developing her sense of humor based on Adventure Time and Futurama.)
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
But you seem to believe that anyone can achieve anything with sufficient hard work[/B]. You also seem to think that anything that can be achieved is worth achieving. I question both those premises.
I completely agree with the rest of your post. But I do think that there's a lot of truth to this. Natural talent seems far less important in determining someone's skill level than just how many hours they've practiced it. It's really rare for someone to put in massive amounts of time practicing something, and not become really good at it.
Fair enough. I still question the worth of something like that, though - developing a mastery of something that you neither have a talent for nor like at all.
Because regardless of whether or not a random person can be turned into a concert pianist through sheer force of will (or rather, sheer force of mom's will), is that really beneficial for the child? Not everyone is talented at everything, and not everyone likes everything. But I've yet to meet a person who isn't good at something, or who doesn't really enjoy something. So rather than force a kid into some discipline they hate because it's Lucrative and Prestigious and whatever, why not just let them discover what they like, and then work at that? Maybe they really like to cook. Awesome, they can be a chef. Maybe they like video games. Cool, let them be a gaming journalist.
I mean, just about any thing a person can be interested in has some sort of career associated with it. They shouldn't be allowed to completely slack off on their other responsibilities in hopes that they still want to be the same thing ten years later, but it's perfectly all right to aspire to a lifestyle that doesn't involve a six-figure salary and a 2500 sq ft house in the 'burbs.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
there's something to be said for self motivation. Tiger moms make me wary because I've found that these super achievers either need mom to continue putting pressure on them or they fall to pieces.
I would also argue that a small amount of tv is necessary tobecome properly socialized
If you mean TV is required for kids to participate in the shared pop culture that comprises so much of childhood socialization, then yeah.
Of course, I never really considered TV to be the corrupting influence others do. Both my kids actually learned a ton of stuff from watching television. My daughter developed an interest in foreign languages from watching Dora the Explorer and Ni Hao, Kai-Lan, and my son is learning color theory from some... thing called Bubble Guppies. The shows can make learning fun in a way that a parent with flash cards (or whatever) can't, at least not as easily.
This presumes, though, that your kid isn't watching stuff like Spongebob and Scooby-Doo. (Though my daughter is developing her sense of humor based on Adventure Time and Futurama.)
Those shows on Nick Jr are great for kids. He likes them, and they seem to sow the seeds of curiosity about foreign languages and cultures. Not sure I like Ni Hao and the China love though. But hey, I'm old and when he's older I'll seem ridiculous to him for my "Can't trust them commie Chinese" remarks. Or something.
I usually have my son watch DIrty Jobs and Good Eats with me. Good Eats plays into my having him help me in the kitchen since I insist my son will know how to cook. He doesn't have to grow up to be a chef or anything, but by God he will know how to make something good for himself when he grows up and leaves the house.
As for Dirty Jobs; there's career lessons in there. And I think everyone should watch that show.
So what if your child isn't going to be career-awesome at something though? Everything in life is a lesson, and enduring horrible piano lessons - even if you have no particular desire to be a concert pianist - still teaches you something. I mean, shit, there's something to be said for teaching your children endurance, to the point where you could provide your child with valuable life experience by making her pursue something she specifically isn't good at, just to instill the general work ethic.
And if you don't push your child out of the safe comfort of the nest into various odd activities, how's he going to figure out what he likes? He has pretty much the selection you provide for him. Obviously, being supportive of the choice is important, but "don't knock it til you've tried it" is particularly apt when you're dealing with someone who hasn't tried anything. Same goes for natural affinity; Pretty sure babies don't come with manuals that detail which sports this particular piece of genetic composition might be suited for, you still need to try it. By which I mean the parent has to make the child try it.
There's a happy middle way for everything, but I don't think that middle way is in making sure your child enjoys every activity you put her up to, nor that the initative of every activity worth doing has to come from the child.
(And I don't think dyslexia at least is as widespread in Asian countries. From what I remember, the picturesque alphabets - while having other annoying drawbacks - interact differently with our brains so it's easier to piece togheter)
I would also disagree that if you do something long enough you'll be good at it. I taught improv in colege for our training group and I have to say some of them stayed about the same despite years of work. I honestly think it required an innate sense of humor as well as stage presence and both are very difficult to teach people. I am a fairly good improviser and I worked at ot pretty hard but I also distinctly remember being quite good at it despite having little or no training.
Casual Eddy on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I would also disagree that if you do something long enough you'll be good at it. I taught improv in colege for our training group and I have to say some of them stayed about the same despite years of work. I honestly think it required an innate sense of humor as well as stage presence and both are very difficult to teach people. I am a fairly good improviser and I worked at ot pretty hard but I also distinctly remember being quite good at it despite having little or no training.
Yeah, and this is probably why the dramatic arts don't seem to have near the import in Asian cultures as it does in the West.
From my time in film school, I totally agree that either you have self-awareness or you don't, and it can't be taught. It's probably why most Tiger Moms choose activities for their kids that are basically just rote memorization and muscle-memory.
I also seem to recall that when we had our writing assignments in film school, the Asian kids has the worst ideas. Everyone was always handicapped or magic, and things just happened to them. I wonder if storytelling fundamentals in Asian film are so skewed because they have such a strong cultural bias against individualism and showing emotion.
It was, and it's certainly not a set-in-stone rule, but it's definitely a recurring theme.
I'll never forget in school when the instructors would tell those kids that characters had to show motivation, not just perform actions. One of the kids even yelled at the instructor for "being racist."
I'll never forget in school when the instructors would tell those kids that characters had to show motivation, not just perform actions. One of the kids even yelled at the instructor for "being racist."
Posts
Ehhhh
You're mostly right about combatants needing to be able to follow orders without hesitating as well as people who work in dangerous conditions. And really, that's certainly drilled in to everyone to at least some degree. It's a necessary requirement given the job. But critical thinking and independent thought aren't discouraged either. Generally the opposite in my experience. If someone's able to find better ways to solve problems, increase efficiency, or just make things generally nicer, it's highly encouraged and usually rewarded in some fashion.
The experience is doing something you dislike for years and years on end, but ultimately earning competency and even some degree of accomplishment. It's a tangible personal example of the cliche, success takes hard work, and something the person can draw on when they set out to accomplish something they do want to accomplish.
I'm not sure what you mean by controlling for failure. Asian parents always push their kids to "be the best", which is clearly impossible. Failure is inevitable, if not constant. So what the system inevitably means is that you must always be striving and never too satisfied with what you've achieved.
Kinda? There were certainly areas I wouldn't have minded being pushed in, and certain areas I got pushed in that I rather wouldn't have.
I was always into music and art as far back as I can remember, and was roundly shut down anytime I asked to expand that scope. I was also into archeology and dentistry, which I also got shut down on. My parents were kind of myopic dicks, just not quite in the same way Tiger Moms are. They were just seriously concerned with my ability to be a financially-independent adult. They always said that anything I wanted to study AFTER I became that was fair game.
Though now that I'm a gainfully-employed adult, I have neither the energy or free time that I did when I was a kid. So sucks to that.
except, i didnt have a tiger mom... nor is asian culture mine... my wife is japanese though if that makes you feel better.
i still dont think any of your studies show any kind of "mental disorder".
Do you believe that the whole tiger-mom phenomenon - demanding excellence in exchange for love, basically - is a viable way of teaching a child how to maintain personal relationships? Or do you agree that it's a terrible means of teaching kids how to interact with others, but it doesn't matter because YAY VIOLIN?
Do you plan on raising your own kids in this manner? Do you think it's superior to not acting like a sociopath towards your children? I'm kinda curious as to your stance, here.
I think you're giving yourself too much of a hard time over maybes. I mean sure, if your parents had heavily pushed you in say archeology, maybe you'd be a literal modern day Indiana Jones and extremely satisfied with your life. But on the other hand maybe you would have found out the actual practice wasn't as interesting as the idea and grown to resent your parents for killing your dream.
I went through a similar thing, where I had phases where I would be obsessed over penguins, then sharks, then dinosaurs, and then computers. Trying to read as much as I could about them, learning as much as I could. My parents also pretty much didn't give a crap about that stuff. Get good grades! You need them to get a good job, that's what matters.
And so I slaved away for grades, and slowly the other interests just kind of faded away. I mean I'll always think penguins, sharks, and dinosaurs are cool, and sometime I wonder about being an ornithologist, or an ichthyologist, or a paleontologist. But I honestly don't have a huge interest in learning more about those things. I've got new interests, new things that I want to learn about and skills to get good at. And I think that's how it is in most people's lives. We grow and change, and often the things we loved as kids are just that: Things we loved as kids. They don't have to be more than that.
Controlling for failure is like this; is there a safety net below you when you fail or disgust from your parents when you fail to attain the highest standards.
flash in the pan to be swiftly forgotten. i think time got it right when they said that the book just struck a nerve with us because of how well shanghainese students performed when compared with everyone else, especially americans.
having never read the book, i think that a lot of what the time article said regarding her book made sense to me.
i assume strength, not fragility in my child. i expect excellence. the article itself didnt say anything about demanding excellence in exchange for love, but i have nothing against having high expectations for my child(ren), even extremely high expectations.
again, since i havent read the book, i cant comment on the details. but i do think most parents in the u.s. are far too lax with their children. like, far, far, far too lax. and this idea that you are a special snowflake no matter how poorly you perform is also not something i love.
i definitely subscribe to the ideal of hard work. i dont think hard work equates to success, but i do think success is impossible without it. necessary, but not sufficient.
im going to tell my kids that they better get a's in all their classes, just like my mom told me. i dont think that makes me a tiger dad (or my mom a tiger mom). i think it just means that many (most?) kids do actually live up to their parents' expectations.
Or what?
Well, your parents are still going to feed you, clothe you, give you shelter. They're not going to like let you die for failing. It's more or less they will let you know how extremely disappointed they are in you, and maybe take away something you want (TV, computer, playdates, etc.) or give you some other kind of punishment for a while.
I mean it sounds pretty fucking insane, especially if the "failure" is like something minor like a B on the report card, or like 3rd place at some prestigious competition that most aren't even good enough to compete in. It's sounds like downright barbaric parenting, and most of the time it is. But I think there's actually a time this can be a reasonable tactic.
Presumably Chua's parents were just as harsh on her, and she turned out to be a Yale professor. Highly successful by any metric, clearly her parents parenting succeeded. She tried to parent in the same manner on her own children. They rebelled and her parenting became highly destructive to their relationship. Why?
I think it had to do with the fact that Chua's parents were immigrants. They made huge sacrifices to be in this country and raise her. Chua talks about how her father wore the same shoes for 8 years, presumably they weren't very wealthy. I think kids can pick up on context like this. Context matters. When Chua messed up and her parents called her "garbage", the unspoken subtext was "We made so many sacrifices to be here, to give you an opportunity to succeed, all we want is A's on your report card and you can't even do that?" In that context, "garbage" isn't a cruel attack. It is a statement that you really have underperformed, and something that the child finds unpleasant, but not malicious. A sign that they need to do better.
Chua tried to use the same tactics on her children, but failed because the context is completely different. Chua's family is quite wealthy, her pushing her daughters to an extreme degree won't be seen by them as something necessary to their success and prosperity. It will be seen only for the surface meaning. Do well to make me proud. And I think that can only motivate a child so far.
Well this is something that I alluded to. People that arent fully integrated to American culture seemingly can sustain a more emotionally hostile environment with less observable downside. I think that the more immersed American you are, the less you see the less a sink or swim mentality grabs you, especially in light of the ample experience you can draw from your peers where most of us just float at different levels.
And really a lot of this whole debate just comes down to parental projection from an immigrant family.
Define "extremely high expectations". Do you expect that your child should be awesome at anything he tries to do? Do you expect this to be the case for any given child in any given discipline?
There is middle ground between "you are a special snowflake and are awesome even if you get straight Fs" and "Fuck you if you can't play a perfect concerto," you know.
Sure. But you seem to believe that anyone can achieve anything with sufficient hard work. You also seem to think that anything that can be achieved is worth achieving. I question both those premises.
I don't know dick about you, or whatever sort of progeny you will foist upon this world. So I don't know if "you better get straight As or else, mister!" is even remotely reasonable for you. But I can certainly say that in general, it is neither a reasonable nor desirable goal. While American high school academia isn't exactly the most challenging thing out there, demanding nigh-perfection from your children is pretty fucking retarded, when you're going sight-unseen here.
Okay, let's use a concrete example.
We all know I love to talk about my daughter, because she is objectively awesome. So let's talk about her. She is a fairly brilliant little 6 year old girl, taught herself to read at 3, now reads at a fifth grade level, very skilled at artwork, excellent at math. She's extremely engaged in school, her teachers all love her, she has lots of friends. Pretty much a dream kid, here.
Now she's at a Montessori school, so the grading system is a little skewed. They don't really have A's there. But they do have a grading system of sorts, and she would have something probably akin to 95% A's and a few B+'s.
Apparently, though, this is not good enough. Because she "better" get straight A's. So first of all, what should her punishment be? And second, please explain the real-world benefits that she would gain by doing whatever is necessary to gain those few remaining A's.
Children aren't infinitely malleable clones that can be tailored to whatever you want them to be.
The whole thing about asserting the individuality in a child isn't to make them think they're above anything or anyone. That's kinda lost when individuality and autonomy get derisive terms like special snowflake.
To wit, what if this means they cheat to get A's and get away with it?
[/QUOTE]
I completely agree with the rest of your post. But I do think that there's a lot of truth to this. Natural talent seems far less important in determining someone's skill level than just how many hours they've practiced it. It's really rare for someone to put in massive amounts of time practicing something, and not become really good at it.
Honestly, a few circumstances can make the piano a horrible instrument to learn.
Between the ages of 4 and 18 my Taiwanese mother taught me to play piano (okay, that would be marginally inaccurate, because my mother didn't know how to play it either, so she relied on teachers earlier on and then basically ordered me to play songs after I had gotten through the basics).
Putting aside the fact that I didn't like it personally, I lived in seven different countries in the same time period. A $4000 upright piano is not an idea instrument for someone on the move. And while my mother tried hard to buy or rent a piano every place we lived, there just aren't that many places to find a piano Sumatran farm country.
So, like everyone else, when I went to college, I never touched a piano again. Couldn't very well keep one in my dorm, and I wasn't majoring in music.
...not a good instrument. I mean, to force your child to play a musical instrument against their will for a decade or so as a demonstration of your unquestionable authority is one thing, but pick a goddamn suitable instrument.
@ Keth: Nowhere did I say that this parenting style itself constituted some sort of mental disorder in Chinese children. I said that this parenting style contributes to the formation of mental disorders such as depression and general anxiety in these children (or more specifically, their culturally salient equivalents).
I mean, children should learn to read and write and do math before six, but if you have to force children to do shit then you're parenting wrong.
If they don't like your explanation for what you ask of them, then you ask them to do it as a favor to you, with the implication that there are rewards for success, and that you don't get rewarded for sitting on your ass.
The sole fucking role of a parent is to teach. If people don't understand that they are making a blob of flesh into a sentient being through WORDS ALOOOONE, then they don't deserve to be a parent.
We overeat because our food is garbage and it doesn't fucking feed us.
We have put an entire fucking generation of children on pills because we're too fucking stupid to realize that HUNGER DISTRACTS PEOPLE. We're too fucking stupid to even consider it.
Also, there are a lot of other sports that you can get a fucking scholarship from, not just foot/base/basketball. Fuck, my cousin got into Harvard because he knew how to bowl.
I'd consider that more a sad statement on the US educational system then a reason to diversify your child's experiences.
I completely agree with the rest of your post. But I do think that there's a lot of truth to this. Natural talent seems far less important in determining someone's skill level than just how many hours they've practiced it. It's really rare for someone to put in massive amounts of time practicing something, and not become really good at it.[/QUOTE]
I would still agree with Jeff. While things like repitition and muscle memory certainly will give a person an edge over those without those things, they're still going to be far behind those who both work hard AND have a natural affinity.
Myself, for example. I literally cannot perform math in my head. Can't do it. Not even fairly simplistic addition or subtraction. However, thanks to years of school, give me piece of paper and a calculator and I'm freaking aces; I nearly aced the SAT math section. But my brain literally is incapable of solving simple equations that small children can do without thinking.
And again, to what end is this mastery? I posit that any lesson re: work ethic or diligence that might be learned by a childhood crammed with study to achieve mastery of randomly-chosen subjects will probably be nullified when that child comes to realize they hate what they're doing and loathe their parents for forcing it upon them. Few people are going to say, "God, I hate how my parents destroyed my childhood by forcing me into being a concert pianist. I gave that shit up the minute I could. But hey, at least I learned valuable lessons in hard work! And I'm a hit at parties! Or would be, if I had friends that invited me to things like parties . . . ."
Far too many parents (including my own grandparents) try to instill the message that anyone can be or do anything with enough determination and work, yet there's a flipside to that that never gets mentioned, which is the effect such dedication will have on any other plans you might have.
Personally, I don't want to be externally defined by my level of acheivement or job title. I know too many successful people with families who hate them to fall into that trap, including my father-in-law.
Have you ever read Outliers? It does a pretty good job of demonstrating scientifically that having lots of practice (specifically, the right kind of practice with a good teacher) is much more powerful than natural talent.
Totally agree with this. Playing the piano for thousands of hours will make you a good piano player, but not much else (although it made me completely kick ass at Guitar Hero). That's why kids should be given a broad range of experiences, so that if they do pick something to completely focus on they'll know what they're giving up, too.
I also agree that I hate the way so many people get defined and pigeonholed by their job title. There's more to life than just a job, dammit.
Conversely, I know way too many people who think their advanced title entitle them to acting like total asshole, from some of the dickwad doctors I've worked with to the college professors who insist upon being called "doctor."
Because bitch please, you're a doctor of marketing studies. No one is looking for you when the guy next to your table at the restaurant has a heart attack.
I don't disagree with that theory at all, but what I was alluding to was the fact that as far as "ultimate" mastery goes, the winners will almost always been those with a combination of work ethic AND natural affinity.
Since everybody else is tossing around anecdotes, I will give you mine:
I have Lower grade Cerebral Palsy. It means that I have slightly reduced upper body strenght and reduced fine motor skills in my hands and fingers. This means that writing is severly difficult for me, since writing is fine motor skills. Even computers do not mitigate the problem completly. As for Musical instruments like the violin, the guitar and the Piano... Are you shitting me? It was only in high school when I was allowed to take my exams verbally that my grades matched my abilities(talking straight Ds to Straight As).
Thing is you can't really diagnose my kind of problem at a young age. After all; Lack of fine motor skills, short attention span and difficulty learning to read are the hallmarks of small children. Now imagine forcing a small child with ADD, ADHD, Dyslexia or CP to learn the violin/piano and demanding they get straight As in school. You have crossed the line from ambitous parent straight into abusive parent. Worst of all when your kid reacts to your abuse, you call him lazy?
Because I refuse to believe that Asian kids have less ADD/ADHD/Dyslexia then the rest of the world.
I would also argue that a small amount of tv is necessary tobecome properly socialized
If you mean TV is required for kids to participate in the shared pop culture that comprises so much of childhood socialization, then yeah.
Of course, I never really considered TV to be the corrupting influence others do. Both my kids actually learned a ton of stuff from watching television. My daughter developed an interest in foreign languages from watching Dora the Explorer and Ni Hao, Kai-Lan, and my son is learning color theory from some... thing called Bubble Guppies. The shows can make learning fun in a way that a parent with flash cards (or whatever) can't, at least not as easily.
This presumes, though, that your kid isn't watching stuff like Spongebob and Scooby-Doo. (Though my daughter is developing her sense of humor based on Adventure Time and Futurama.)
Fair enough. I still question the worth of something like that, though - developing a mastery of something that you neither have a talent for nor like at all.
Because regardless of whether or not a random person can be turned into a concert pianist through sheer force of will (or rather, sheer force of mom's will), is that really beneficial for the child? Not everyone is talented at everything, and not everyone likes everything. But I've yet to meet a person who isn't good at something, or who doesn't really enjoy something. So rather than force a kid into some discipline they hate because it's Lucrative and Prestigious and whatever, why not just let them discover what they like, and then work at that? Maybe they really like to cook. Awesome, they can be a chef. Maybe they like video games. Cool, let them be a gaming journalist.
I mean, just about any thing a person can be interested in has some sort of career associated with it. They shouldn't be allowed to completely slack off on their other responsibilities in hopes that they still want to be the same thing ten years later, but it's perfectly all right to aspire to a lifestyle that doesn't involve a six-figure salary and a 2500 sq ft house in the 'burbs.
Those shows on Nick Jr are great for kids. He likes them, and they seem to sow the seeds of curiosity about foreign languages and cultures. Not sure I like Ni Hao and the China love though. But hey, I'm old and when he's older I'll seem ridiculous to him for my "Can't trust them commie Chinese" remarks. Or something.
I usually have my son watch DIrty Jobs and Good Eats with me. Good Eats plays into my having him help me in the kitchen since I insist my son will know how to cook. He doesn't have to grow up to be a chef or anything, but by God he will know how to make something good for himself when he grows up and leaves the house.
As for Dirty Jobs; there's career lessons in there. And I think everyone should watch that show.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Ahahahaaha THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FAILURE! IF YOU DON'T WANT WHAT I WANT THEN YOU HAVE SETTLED!
By the time that these dipshit parents realize what they've done, they're dying and their kids are too busy to visit them.
):
And if you don't push your child out of the safe comfort of the nest into various odd activities, how's he going to figure out what he likes? He has pretty much the selection you provide for him. Obviously, being supportive of the choice is important, but "don't knock it til you've tried it" is particularly apt when you're dealing with someone who hasn't tried anything. Same goes for natural affinity; Pretty sure babies don't come with manuals that detail which sports this particular piece of genetic composition might be suited for, you still need to try it. By which I mean the parent has to make the child try it.
There's a happy middle way for everything, but I don't think that middle way is in making sure your child enjoys every activity you put her up to, nor that the initative of every activity worth doing has to come from the child.
(And I don't think dyslexia at least is as widespread in Asian countries. From what I remember, the picturesque alphabets - while having other annoying drawbacks - interact differently with our brains so it's easier to piece togheter)
We also watch the shit out of Scooby Doo, I love me some Scooby Doo.
...Chau made me empathize with Ayn Rand. That a hsh FAD GODDAMNIT A RR AGH
Ayn Rand and Reagan are like the Bible, in that people learned ALL OF THE WRONG LESSONS from them.
That is how I shall explain it to myself.
Yeah, and this is probably why the dramatic arts don't seem to have near the import in Asian cultures as it does in the West.
From my time in film school, I totally agree that either you have self-awareness or you don't, and it can't be taught. It's probably why most Tiger Moms choose activities for their kids that are basically just rote memorization and muscle-memory.
I also seem to recall that when we had our writing assignments in film school, the Asian kids has the worst ideas. Everyone was always handicapped or magic, and things just happened to them. I wonder if storytelling fundamentals in Asian film are so skewed because they have such a strong cultural bias against individualism and showing emotion.
It was, and it's certainly not a set-in-stone rule, but it's definitely a recurring theme.
I'll never forget in school when the instructors would tell those kids that characters had to show motivation, not just perform actions. One of the kids even yelled at the instructor for "being racist."
What on earth?