The "Tiger Mother" is back, now looking at culture vs. success in America

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201402141000

We know Chua definitely doesn't pull punches, and controversy increases sales. But just as her last book was a "cautionary tale" of the cost-benefit of raising kids a certain way, this new book (wrote with her husband) is not a "this is how you should do it" lesson  for success in America. It presents a certain formula that led to seemingly positive outcomes for some groups, as well as the pro-con implications of that approach. It can be misused, doesn't guarantee results, and is not appropriate for all situations.

First of all - every culture has segments who are flying high and some who are struggling. Anecdotes aren't really useful (John Roberts types thinking that racism is no longer a problem because Obama became president), and I think the authors are more interested in comparing group averages/medians and proportions. They think academic/economic success is America is tied to being an "out-group" with strong ethnic pride and a chip on the shoulder to succeed. Like some Asian immigrants were used to being at the top of their native societies, but have to start from scratch in America. So they push their kids hard to excel in school and return to prominence. But once the immigrants have been here for 3-4 generations (like some Irish, Chinese), then they start to lose that drive, assimilate (for better or worse), and lag behind more recent immigrants. Unfortunately, when you compare lower-income recent Chinese and Latino immigrants, the kids of the Chinese families are doing a lot better in the US - despite both of them coming from similar socioeconomic backgrounds in their homelands and filling similar social niches in the US. So something may be going on there.

Also, cultures like Jews and Mormons may feel that they are a "chosen people" destined to be great, yet could be misunderstood and not accepted in mainstream US culture (getting less and less so). That also motivates them to succeed, "prove the haters wrong", and may manifest itself in disproportionate representation at elite colleges and workplaces. I wonder if they showed data that Jews and Mormons who are more devout/culturally aware do better than those who don't, to see if heritage is really the driving force. But of course extremist, fundamentalist Jews and Mormons are not doing as well in the US, as they likely eschew mainstream education and careers. Similarly, I wonder if the authors have looked at LGBT Americans. They may also fit the mold of a proud, fairly successful out-group. However, it may not be their differentiating sexual identity that is driving the success, but rather the fact that they tend to come from more educated/wealthy backgrounds, and live in urban, progressive environments with a lot of social mobility and economic opportunity?

Lastly, cultures/families that promote delayed gratification/strategic thinking/discipline also seem to be correlated with better economic outcomes. This is kind of parenting 101, but if families can get kids to "buy into the program" that short-term pain is worth it for long-term gain, then the kids may embrace the benefits of studying, piano practice, etc. I haven't read this book, so I am not sure if they are claiming that some cultures on average promote these behaviors more than others, or if it's even possible to collect that data.

However, the authors don't really talk about the blue-bloods in America who may not fit their model at all, yet remain quite successful (Bill Gates, Rockefeller types). In that case, wealth-class-environment are a much bigger driver than cultural background and customs. You give someone with any race/ethnicity/background the upbringing that George W. Bush had, and that person is going to be pretty successful. I am not sure if I can say the same if Bush, Paris Hilton, or other "legacy babies" get swapped into a single-mother family in East LA or Flint. So the authors call out the difference between cultural pride and misguided sense of entitlement. The former may motivate a person to strive harder and "live up" to the high expectations of their heritage, while the latter may make a person lazy and arrogant. Personally, I think pride is a dangerous tool that historically has led to more harm than good. Humility and social awareness can also motivate people to do great things for others, while also profiting personally.

A thesis like theirs can easily be misconstrued to imply that some cultures are simply "better" than others. I really don't think the authors are going there. It's not like we can just decide to "act Jewish," and next generation our family will do as well as the Zuckerbergs. Some cultures are clearly struggling in America, and a greater emphasis on education, discipline, etc. would definitely help. But that may not be enough for many families who are burdened by the physical, emotional, and psychological disadvantages of poverty, geography, racism, macroeconomics, etc. That could partly explain why some recent African immigrants (esp. Nigerians) are on average doing a lot better in the US than many African-Americans whose ancestors were slaves.

And they also raise the question - what is the downside of this approach? As we probably know first-hand, it can be hard to live with parents who have a chip on their shoulder and skewed perspective on success. Like what was depicted in the Tiger Mom book, it's often not a very fun childhood when you're only getting "you're not good enough, no dinner if you mess up your piano recital, you have to be a doctor," etc. And it can be both good and bad for society if we raise kids who are obsessed with individual academic/economic success, yet may not be as concerned with other priorities like being a good person, citizen, neighbor, etc. History has shown us many times that people who feel they are a chosen race end up doing bad things to others. Fortunately US laws and social norms generally prevent that from happening, but I can envision problems associated with groups who think they are superior. Real/perceived discrimination against them is no excuse to embrace exceptionalism. "All men are created equal," remember?

What it all boils down to for me: I would hope that humans try to strike a balance between encouraging academic/economic success (especially for groups with a history of struggles), while not becoming single-minded, arrogant pricks in the process.

French parenting vs. Tiger/helicopter parenting

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201203071000




I know before we discussed the merits and pitfalls of obsessive, micromanaging "Tiger" or "helicopter" parents in the US, but here is the opposite extreme: the "laissez-faire" French method. I have never been a parent, but the French method seems likely to reduce overall family stress with little to no harm to the kid (and in fact may teach beneficial habits like patience, self-control, and self-sufficiency). But in general, the kids are not the center of the family, they are the "supporting cast." The couples' marriage is still the top priority. So the adults may maintain higher satisfaction, and the kids are less likely to become egocentric, spoiled brats. They learn that when they cry or mess up, there aren't frantic, doting parents/grandparents immediately racing to their aid. I guess Americans fear that if they don't come running, their kid will end up scarred for life, or they look like negligent deadbeats? And despite all this attention, the kid will probably resent, rebel, and drift apart later anyway, whereas French kids grow up and happily continue to spend time with their parents. Of course these are all generalizations, and no one knows how much parenting techniques actually affect a child's future.



Of course there is a spectrum of behaviors, but the French model is not about being "perfect parents" to give their "precious darlings" every possible joy and opportunity in life. That's impossible anyway, so why run yourself ragged trying? French parents are not obsessed with consuming "parenting paraphernalia," nutrition, and tutoring, yet French kids end up better educated, more law-abiding, and healthier than Americans on average (and middle-class birth rates are higher in France). Of course French society is a lot more mature and adult-centric than ours, and there are many more social services available to make parenting easier on the French. So for Americans, our gov't provides very little help, and our parents put more pressure on themselves to engage in nonstop parenting, so it's a recipe for disaster. Also, schools in France are for education, not for babysitting and learning bad social habits, like they are here.



Another difference is how self-expression is encouraged/managed. Americans, despite being micromanaging, also tend to go easy on the discipline and limits, for fear of damaging self-esteem, creativity, or something. I guess that's why we always hear at the malls, "Mommy I want, I want, I want!" But what is the value of a creative, confident, expressive kid who expects a level of attention that is probably impossible to sustain when they're older? The French philosophy is that unreasonable desire leads to an unhappy and imbalanced kid, so they need to learn limits or that will hurt their self-esteem, creativity, etc. 2 means to the same end I guess. Boredom is also a tolerated and even encouraged part of childhood. Instead of staring at a screen or having an adult entertain them 24-7, maybe kids should learn to sit quiety and imagine/contemplate the world.



A caller on the program: "American parents think their little darlings are gifts to the world, and expect that the rest of us should adore them too." That's probably some sort of psychosis associated with the parents' own inferiority and vicarious ego issues, as well as our cultural values.



FYI, British parenting resembles the American model more than the French