[OT] WSJ: “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior”

[Coronita]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=flu][quote=sdduuuude][quote=flu][quote=sdduuuude]Stop playing the violin and I’ll explain.[/quote]

explain….(throws violin out the window).[/quote]

Well, first of all, your people skills are GARBAGE and so are you ![/quote]

Now I’m offended. 🙂 Are you referring to my real people skills or my blog skills? My real people skills are actually pretty good. I just use my uterior blog skills to “decompress” from all the PCness during my normal day.[/quote]

Was just trying my Chinese Mother parenting techniques that I learned from the article.[/quote]

I’m such a failure. Now I must look down, with my head in shame….I’ve disgraced the family….I must strive for perfection.. I must fully master my command of ebonics….

[davelj]

When I first read that article (which was prior to finding it discussed here) my very first inkling was that it was an April Fool’s joke, but then I quickly realized it was just January.

I don’t have kids. Never will. But I feel sorry for kids who endure the kind of upbringing enforced by Ms. Chua. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that the typical Caucasian approach to discipline, education, etc. is lacking. You’ll get no argument from me there. But I think the militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua and her cohorts is just as wrong-headed, just in the opposite direction. While many kids that grow up under the typical Caucasian approach will be unprepared for the rigors of the real world, I suspect that many kids that grow up under the militaristic approach will be prone to insecurity and depression, and have difficult relationships with their parents. I’m not a parent, but neither approach appears to be a recipe for producing “contentment,” which should be the real goal (in my opinion).

I’ve known kids who excelled academically, went the math & science magnet school route, and still managed to not amount to much professionally or otherwise. Conversely, I’ve known kids who went the Montessori route, didn’t work particularly hard, spent plenty of time smelling the roses and went on to great success. I just don’t see it as an either/or proposition. And, in my view, anyone who tries to portray it as such is really revealing more about themselves than anything else.

Although it’s a cliche, there’s some truth to it: The C-students own the company in which the B-student is the President and the A-student is the accountant. Again, clearly that’s not always the case. But the rote/militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua does not engender much imagination or inspiration. And while perspiration is important, too (as Einstein noted), in this day and age there is a lot of global competition from the automaton set. Personally, I don’t value “computing power” – which is Ms. Chua’s focus – because it’s so easily found – and it’s cheap. I value imagination, initiative, and a high social IQ on top of a fundamental competence as a baseline. But that’s just my view of the world.

[davelj]

When I first read that article (which was prior to finding it discussed here) my very first inkling was that it was an April Fool’s joke, but then I quickly realized it was just January.

I don’t have kids. Never will. But I feel sorry for kids who endure the kind of upbringing enforced by Ms. Chua. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that the typical Caucasian approach to discipline, education, etc. is lacking. You’ll get no argument from me there. But I think the militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua and her cohorts is just as wrong-headed, just in the opposite direction. While many kids that grow up under the typical Caucasian approach will be unprepared for the rigors of the real world, I suspect that many kids that grow up under the militaristic approach will be prone to insecurity and depression, and have difficult relationships with their parents. I’m not a parent, but neither approach appears to be a recipe for producing “contentment,” which should be the real goal (in my opinion).

I’ve known kids who excelled academically, went the math & science magnet school route, and still managed to not amount to much professionally or otherwise. Conversely, I’ve known kids who went the Montessori route, didn’t work particularly hard, spent plenty of time smelling the roses and went on to great success. I just don’t see it as an either/or proposition. And, in my view, anyone who tries to portray it as such is really revealing more about themselves than anything else.

Although it’s a cliche, there’s some truth to it: The C-students own the company in which the B-student is the President and the A-student is the accountant. Again, clearly that’s not always the case. But the rote/militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua does not engender much imagination or inspiration. And while perspiration is important, too (as Einstein noted), in this day and age there is a lot of global competition from the automaton set. Personally, I don’t value “computing power” – which is Ms. Chua’s focus – because it’s so easily found – and it’s cheap. I value imagination, initiative, and a high social IQ on top of a fundamental competence as a baseline. But that’s just my view of the world.

[davelj]

When I first read that article (which was prior to finding it discussed here) my very first inkling was that it was an April Fool’s joke, but then I quickly realized it was just January.

I don’t have kids. Never will. But I feel sorry for kids who endure the kind of upbringing enforced by Ms. Chua. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that the typical Caucasian approach to discipline, education, etc. is lacking. You’ll get no argument from me there. But I think the militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua and her cohorts is just as wrong-headed, just in the opposite direction. While many kids that grow up under the typical Caucasian approach will be unprepared for the rigors of the real world, I suspect that many kids that grow up under the militaristic approach will be prone to insecurity and depression, and have difficult relationships with their parents. I’m not a parent, but neither approach appears to be a recipe for producing “contentment,” which should be the real goal (in my opinion).

I’ve known kids who excelled academically, went the math & science magnet school route, and still managed to not amount to much professionally or otherwise. Conversely, I’ve known kids who went the Montessori route, didn’t work particularly hard, spent plenty of time smelling the roses and went on to great success. I just don’t see it as an either/or proposition. And, in my view, anyone who tries to portray it as such is really revealing more about themselves than anything else.

Although it’s a cliche, there’s some truth to it: The C-students own the company in which the B-student is the President and the A-student is the accountant. Again, clearly that’s not always the case. But the rote/militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua does not engender much imagination or inspiration. And while perspiration is important, too (as Einstein noted), in this day and age there is a lot of global competition from the automaton set. Personally, I don’t value “computing power” – which is Ms. Chua’s focus – because it’s so easily found – and it’s cheap. I value imagination, initiative, and a high social IQ on top of a fundamental competence as a baseline. But that’s just my view of the world.

[davelj]

When I first read that article (which was prior to finding it discussed here) my very first inkling was that it was an April Fool’s joke, but then I quickly realized it was just January.

I don’t have kids. Never will. But I feel sorry for kids who endure the kind of upbringing enforced by Ms. Chua. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that the typical Caucasian approach to discipline, education, etc. is lacking. You’ll get no argument from me there. But I think the militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua and her cohorts is just as wrong-headed, just in the opposite direction. While many kids that grow up under the typical Caucasian approach will be unprepared for the rigors of the real world, I suspect that many kids that grow up under the militaristic approach will be prone to insecurity and depression, and have difficult relationships with their parents. I’m not a parent, but neither approach appears to be a recipe for producing “contentment,” which should be the real goal (in my opinion).

I’ve known kids who excelled academically, went the math & science magnet school route, and still managed to not amount to much professionally or otherwise. Conversely, I’ve known kids who went the Montessori route, didn’t work particularly hard, spent plenty of time smelling the roses and went on to great success. I just don’t see it as an either/or proposition. And, in my view, anyone who tries to portray it as such is really revealing more about themselves than anything else.

Although it’s a cliche, there’s some truth to it: The C-students own the company in which the B-student is the President and the A-student is the accountant. Again, clearly that’s not always the case. But the rote/militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua does not engender much imagination or inspiration. And while perspiration is important, too (as Einstein noted), in this day and age there is a lot of global competition from the automaton set. Personally, I don’t value “computing power” – which is Ms. Chua’s focus – because it’s so easily found – and it’s cheap. I value imagination, initiative, and a high social IQ on top of a fundamental competence as a baseline. But that’s just my view of the world.

[davelj]

When I first read that article (which was prior to finding it discussed here) my very first inkling was that it was an April Fool’s joke, but then I quickly realized it was just January.

I don’t have kids. Never will. But I feel sorry for kids who endure the kind of upbringing enforced by Ms. Chua. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that the typical Caucasian approach to discipline, education, etc. is lacking. You’ll get no argument from me there. But I think the militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua and her cohorts is just as wrong-headed, just in the opposite direction. While many kids that grow up under the typical Caucasian approach will be unprepared for the rigors of the real world, I suspect that many kids that grow up under the militaristic approach will be prone to insecurity and depression, and have difficult relationships with their parents. I’m not a parent, but neither approach appears to be a recipe for producing “contentment,” which should be the real goal (in my opinion).

I’ve known kids who excelled academically, went the math & science magnet school route, and still managed to not amount to much professionally or otherwise. Conversely, I’ve known kids who went the Montessori route, didn’t work particularly hard, spent plenty of time smelling the roses and went on to great success. I just don’t see it as an either/or proposition. And, in my view, anyone who tries to portray it as such is really revealing more about themselves than anything else.

Although it’s a cliche, there’s some truth to it: The C-students own the company in which the B-student is the President and the A-student is the accountant. Again, clearly that’s not always the case. But the rote/militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua does not engender much imagination or inspiration. And while perspiration is important, too (as Einstein noted), in this day and age there is a lot of global competition from the automaton set. Personally, I don’t value “computing power” – which is Ms. Chua’s focus – because it’s so easily found – and it’s cheap. I value imagination, initiative, and a high social IQ on top of a fundamental competence as a baseline. But that’s just my view of the world.

[sdduuuude]

AK – holy crap, that is funny !

[sdduuuude]

AK – holy crap, that is funny !

[sdduuuude]

AK – holy crap, that is funny !

[sdduuuude]

AK – holy crap, that is funny !

[sdduuuude]

AK – holy crap, that is funny !

[davelj]

I wouldn’t have put it exactly how he did, but I don’t think this guy’s too far off:

http://paper-money.blogspot.com/2011/01/chinese-mother-fubar.html

[davelj]

I wouldn’t have put it exactly how he did, but I don’t think this guy’s too far off:

http://paper-money.blogspot.com/2011/01/chinese-mother-fubar.html

[davelj]

I wouldn’t have put it exactly how he did, but I don’t think this guy’s too far off:

http://paper-money.blogspot.com/2011/01/chinese-mother-fubar.html

[davelj]

I wouldn’t have put it exactly how he did, but I don’t think this guy’s too far off:

http://paper-money.blogspot.com/2011/01/chinese-mother-fubar.html

[Author]

Posts