
Japanese Education: Amae, Stress, and Perseverence - snailletters
http://www.tofugu.com/japan/japanese-education/
======
unabst
The part about amae is a bit off. I would go a step further than translating
it just as "to wish to be loved." That's still normal even in western culture.
Amae is closer to "nagging to be pet over the head while doing a cute face" or
"whining" and "talking in a high pitch voice on purpose to sound cute so that
you can get what you want".

"Amaeruna!" is heard often and for good reason. It means stop acting like a
child and grow the F up. There is also "Amaesugi" (too much) and "Amaenbou"
(someone who does too much) which are not positive terms. Then there is
"Mazakon" which is short for mother complex. It's an insult, not a compliment,
and it's directed towards male adults.

So you see, Japanese are both aware and critical of their amae tendencies.

> this amae… it's what keeps Japanese society together. It's the root cause of
> the successes you see in the Japanese education system.

Nah. I would stop at discipline, order, and obedience. Amae is still very
personal, and is not any glue that builds businesses or communities, let alone
the culture. Where it is seen exported the most is in Anime culture, not Sony
or Toyota or Uniqlo or Rakuten.

Also, the part about "rat babies with a strong attachment to their mothers"
can also be interpreted as "rat mothers with a strong attachment to their
babies". Amae is not the opposite of neglect, nor a cure for it. The word for
a parent's apparent over-attachment is "Oyabaka". You don't want to be too
much of that either.

I was raised by a single mother. I had a lot of alone time, which I enjoyed
very much. But I was never neglected. When I was little, I was an amaenbou.
But I did well in school because I had good studying habits, and my mother
paid attention to how I did and how I did it. I had a stress free childhood,
did well in school, and did not need amae to counteract my stress. None of my
friends were stressed out either. Being a kid in Japan is fun. I'd say junior
high that's the worst with Ijime at it's peak.

~~~
throwawayi43224
Reminds me of,

[https://medium.com/@patricksherriff/how-to-write-about-
japan...](https://medium.com/@patricksherriff/how-to-write-about-
japan-593c77b85f38)

------
rdtsc
This resonates a bit with me. The relationship with my mother defined who I
am, things like my work ethic, perseverance and so on came from her. She
sacrificed her career giving up being printer to work a as a janitor,
delivering mail, a security guard just to make sure she was home when I came
back from school. Saved money for quite a while out of the little we had to
buy me a computer I've been wanted. If it wasn't for that I would been where I
am now. Most of all it was just about knowing no matter how hard things got I
knew I could always come home and she'd be there. She cared about my grades,
asked questions about school. She rarely yelled or forced me to learn, but I
could see she was disappointed a bit if she saw I didn't try hard enough. A
bit of that desire to see me succeed came from her experience of being force
to abandon school after 7 grades and having to look after her siblings. Then
having to watch them get advanced degrees and good jobs while she was left
mopping floors and washing toilets.

~~~
throwawayi43224
That should've taken quite a bit of courage. Where did you grow up, if you
don't mind me asking ?

~~~
rdtsc
In the Soviet Union as it was falling apart.

------
jasode
_> These are things like persistence, self-control, curiosity,
conscientiousness, grit, and self-confidence (there are a lot more, too)._

Side note... The author repeatedly mentioning "grit" and "self-control" seems
to be citing (maybe subconsciously) Angela Duckworth's research[1]. As an fyi,
there has been criticism of her study:

[http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/05/25/479172868/angela-d...](http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/05/25/479172868/angela-
duckworth-responds-to-a-new-critique-of-grit)

If Duckworth's research is flawed (e.g. IQ is still the #1 statistical
correlation we have of a measured trait and economic outcomes), it means the
blog author's paragraph is wrong:

 _> Most people think that IQ, the ability to memorize, etc., are the key
metrics for determining the future of a child. These are what economists call
"cognitive skills" and it turns out they are not very good predictors of
future success. What are good predictors are what's known as "non-cognitive
skills." These are things like persistence, self-control, curiosity,
conscientiousness, grit, and self-confidence (there are a lot more, too)._

[1] book: [https://www.amazon.com/Grit-Passion-Perseverance-Angela-
Duck...](https://www.amazon.com/Grit-Passion-Perseverance-Angela-
Duckworth/dp/1501111108)

other writings:
[https://www.macfound.org/fellows/889/](https://www.macfound.org/fellows/889/)

~~~
Spooky23
IQ is a proxy for lots of other things. There have been twin studies where
reading skills, including early childhood reading skills accounted for a lot
of perceived IQ differences.

Early childhood engagement is incredibly important. We attribute many things
to genetics that are outgrowths of a child's home environment. Parents stuck
in cycles of inattentive or abusive family situations, over-reliance on shitty
daycare vs. early childhood education, etc make a huge impact.

~~~
jasode
_> IQ is a proxy for lots of other things. [...] Early childhood engagement is
incredibly important._

Yes I agree that's very true but it's not relevant to the author's specific
paragraph I was highlighting. Your particular statement can be true _while
simultaneously_ , Koichi's paragraph is false.

This doesn't have to be some larger debate about nature-vs-nurture. Instead,
I'm pointing out an example of reading a paragraph with a critical eye.

~~~
unabst
It's not that simple.

> Most people think that IQ, the ability to memorize, etc., are the key
> metrics for determining the future of a child.

In Japan this is definitely true. It's what most people think, as dictated by
what is common sense.

All the while, the mother with the tensai (genius) child will have instilled
good studying habits, focus, prep, etc, and still believe her child is just
smart for having good grades.

So Koichi's paragraph is not false. Or rather, there is truth there. If you
wish to highlight the falseness then that is possible too, but taking an
entire paragraph and trying to equate it as true or false is not that simple.

~~~
jasode
_> In Japan this is definitely true. _

To be clear, I included that 1st sentence there for _context_ so the
subsequent sentences make sense. Same contextual reason for sentence #4. Yes,
Japanese people may think that and yes, non-cognitive skill includes
persistence, etc.

 _> , but taking an entire paragraph_

When I'm saying "paragraph" may be false, I'm talking about sentences #2 and
#3 and not #1 and #4.

------
dkarl
_Compare that to boys who are supposed to be raised as more independent and
tough. Is it possible that the way we raise boys versus girls is what 's
causing more boys to have trouble paying attention?_

I don't know if "independence" and "toughness" capture what the author wants
to talk about. There are cultures built around machismo in which male children
are coddled and doted on by their mothers, where it is normal to be a "momma's
boy" at home and a swaggering macho in the street. It's also possible to
believe in the ideals of equality and interdependence in society at large
while having zero emotional intimacy in the home.

That said, it's interesting that Japan has language for talking about this
aspect of relationships. To me, it suggests a higher degree of uniformity in
attachment styles compared to the United States, where talking about these
kinds of relationships feels like a new social development associated with a
progressive mentality. I think that historically in the United States, actual
behavior at home has been all over the map. Different kids in the same
classroom, with the same skin color, accent, and social class, are raised with
dramatically different family relationships, often without realizing it until
they are much older.

~~~
jansho
> It's also possible to believe in the ideals of equality and interdependence
> in society at large while having zero emotional intimacy in the home.

It's possible but may be harder. Home is like your base camp; you can have a
crappy time in the outside world but home is the ultimate fallback and
sanctuary. At least that's the ideal scenario. There's no doubt that growing
up in a home that is broken or lacking warmth will affect you, and many
studies have shown that. Take one: apparently if your parents are divorced,
then the chance of your own divorcing will be higher [1], not to mention the
other psychological impacts. Now imagine that divorce is normal - actually it
is now - what impact does this have on society overall? It will be harder to
measure, but it is real, just like those Japanese parents who raise their kids
with love ultimately cultivates them into caring (amae context) people.

[1] [https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/11/09/is-my-
marr...](https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/11/09/is-my-marriage-
doomed-if-my-parents-got-divorced-when-i-was-a-kid/)

~~~
dkarl
Sorry, my original statement wasn't clear. What I meant to say is that it's
possible to grow up in a household where equality and interdependence are
embraced as social ideals, but there is no emotional intimacy between members
of the family, and children are discouraged from relying on others
emotionally.

------
microcolonel
> Compare that to boys who are supposed to be raised as more independent and
> tough. Is it possible that the way we raise boys versus girls is what's
> causing more boys to have trouble paying attention? Self control, willpower,
> and the ability to pay attention are all non-cognitive skills. If
> "attachment" and "dependency" are the things that develop a child's non-
> cognitive skills… could this be why more boys have ADHD than girls?

No, please read some research, please, for the love of god please stop, no.
This conjecture is thoroughly questionable, there is copious research to show
these traits developing essentially from birth. The same behavioural
differences exist in effectively the same way cross-culturally (including in
Japan).

There's more to it, schools in japan place a lot of responsibility on the
kids. They are responsible for maintenance of the school (the non-dangerous
kind), and later somewhat responsible for governing aspects of the school,
among other things.

I can't remember a time in a Canadian public school where I was asked to do
something useful for somebody. I think more of that would have helped a lot in
terms of motivation.

~~~
sdflkd
> I can't remember a time in a Canadian public school where I was asked to do
> something useful for somebody. I think more of that would have helped a lot
> in terms of motivation.

I mean we had mandatory volunteer hours? But in general, yes, school is just a
day-care and nothing more.

~~~
ferongr
>mandatory volunteer

Is it volunteering if it's mandatory?

~~~
microcolonel
Yeah, it's oxymoronic. They should just call it duty or something, a euphemism
is better than an oxymoron.

~~~
sdflkd
[http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/124a.html](http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/124a.html)

It is in fact called community involvement! It was my mistake.

------
resoluteteeth
The main argument made by this article appears to be following:

* Japanese students students score higher because of the high-stakes college entrance exam system. However, this creates more stress. Japanese students are able to deal with this stress because of closeness with their mothers.

The article mentions studies on young children, but this does not seem
particularly relevant because children would not yet be experiencing the
stress created by the entrance exam system at this point, unless the argument
is that the way children are raised in early childhood leaves them better able
to deal with stress for the rest of their life, but I'm not sure there is
evidence that Japanese people are better able to deal with stress than
Americans in general.

Even if we assume that there is a difference parental involvement that makes
them better able to handle stress than children in the US, it seems like a
surprising leap to attribute this to this notional Japanese principle of
"amae" without even mentioning the fact that the percentage of working mothers
in the US is almost double what it is in Japan.

------
jansho
Really good article.

It's interesting that right now, we're trying to make learning _easier_.
Gamification, bite-sized lengths, multi-sensory ... they all have merits but
no one in edtech is talking about instilling a habit of _grit_. Not all
knowledge is presented in a silver dish !

And not to be Luddite but technology has made us more detached [1], so
emulating the Japanese _amae_ will also not be easy.

[1]
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39666863](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39666863)

------
ue_
>how attachment reduces stress

Although I'm in the process of reading the article, the title was quite
striking to me - the Buddha said almost exactly the opposite - that it is
attachment which is the cause of stress, clinging to changing phenomena,
hoping they were permanent, or even without realising at the emotional level
that they will fade.

~~~
Jtsummers
Reading this article now, but this is about attachment to another person
through relationships. I haven't studied Buddhism (or Stoicism from my sibling
comment) in great detail. My question is, how does the detachment taught or
encouraged by these philosophies deal with relationships? My understanding of
it (very, very superficial, I know) was more about detachment from things, not
from people. I'd like to be corrected on this if I'm wrong.

~~~
ue_
It's less about detachment than it is about non-attachment; it's the same for
physical objects and even mental phenomena as it is for people - attachment to
these things causes suffering in the same way, when the inevitable time comes
that they pass and fade, their qualities change, your life moves on.

>"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation,
pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha;
separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In
short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."

Dukkha is the word used by the Buddha to describe stressfulness,
unsatisfactoriness, suffering, anguish etc., i.e that pain which is emotional;
his position is that these arise from our desire to be stable, and from that
desire acting upon it, to try and slow the tides of change. At least, that is
my understanding.

But non-attachment to people need not mean that one stops feeling compassion
for them, nor does it mean that one has to break up with one's friends. It's
more about being mindful of the kind of relationships you have, and how they
affect you. For example, one of the Buddha's prescribed techniques is to
meditate on the theme of death, that one's body will eventually die, to
visualise each process of birth, aging, sickness, death, one's decomposing
body, the bones left over, those bones themselves yellowing and decomposing.

But here we have even the most important of all - detachment from one's own
body. I don't mean this in a kind of "outer body experience" way. It's not
that one stops caring, it's that one understands on an emotional level that
things pass; it's not enough to understand this on an intellectual level. This
kind of base understanding within us, acheived through meditation, is referred
to as nibbana/awakening/enlightenment.

>"Just as if a great mass of fire of ten... twenty... thirty or forty
cartloads of timber were burning, and into it a man would time & again throw
dried grass, dried cow dung, & dried timber, so that the great mass of fire —
thus nourished, thus sustained — would burn for a long, long time. In the same
way, in one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena, craving
develops. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite
condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair
come into play. Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

~~~
Jtsummers
> It's less about detachment than it is about non-attachment

Thanks for saying this, those aren't synonymous and at one point I did
read/study (cursory, survey level) about both Buddhism and Stoicism and came
to understand the distinction but failed to use the correct terms in my
comment.

Thanks also for the thoughtful reply. I have some reading to do now.

------
panglott
'The word amae comes from the word amaeru, which, according to Japanese
psychoanalyst Takeo Doi (he's the guy who basically made this term a thing),
can be defined as "to wish to be loved." On top of this, it has connotations
of a need for dependency and a request for indulgence of one's perceived
needs. This amae type of relationship is the ideal for all close relationships
in Japan. It starts with child and mother, but expands out to student and
teacher, student and upperclassmen, salaryman and boss, husband and wife, etc.
It's the senpai-kohai relationship in a nutshell. If everyone is able to
indulge their needs into everyone else then everything will work out, or so
Japanese society has been saying for quite a while now."

I've seen a number of Japanophiles quite taken with this idea of amae,
popularized by psychoanalyst Takeo Doi in 1971.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anatomy_of_Dependence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anatomy_of_Dependence)

To me it sounds like a bunch of Freudian psychobabble or pseudoscience.

The author doesn't even really attempt to empiricially link Japanese amae and
non-cognitive skills (persistence, self-control, curiosity, conscientiousness,
grit, and self-confidence) in the specific case of Japan—where children should
do better on the the Marshmallow Test, if this is accurate.

Tofugu has some great essays on learning Japanese, but this is not one.

~~~
jansho
It might not be just psychobabble though. _Amae_ may seem loosely connected to
those non-cognitive skills, but if the author's right about it being
widespread and so deeply embedded in society that it's applied everywhere,
then I think it's a reasonable assumption that it does contribute to certain
cultural traits, like grit. The author does need to cite studies showing the
relationship between empathy/happy childhood and IQ/EQ though. Still, I
thought that his opinion and what-ifs interesting.

------
dlwdlw
I'm rather wary of culturally based strengths. They DO exist. For example,
being a good students is like being a star quarterback in the US. There simply
isn't a way for US culture to have better academic performance with just this
one cultural difference.

I'm wary because I think culture as a whole exists only to stabilize social
stratification. Under normal circumstances layers will naturally mix, but if
the mobility channels are clearly specified, you have order. In the US this is
the mythos if hard work, in many Asian cultures there are establish systems
based around tests. Indian and European systems had no mobility, being caste
and nobility based.

Hard layers eventually lead to revolt, but soft layers didn't cordone wealth.
Soft layers with prescribed channels are more stable.

So the existing channels are actually purposely inefficient and mostly stupid.

Entrepreneuship for example used to be forced. It was what you must do when
given too much freedom. It was freedom in the sense of far too much, being
ostracized in the desert.

Technology though provides the tools to survive in excess freedom. The desert
can become a plain, once you have your endless water supply and teleporter
that is.

The side effect is that these tools eat culture. It doesn't destroy the bike,
but invents the car. Culture becomes a weekend thing.

Cultural praising often reminds me of hipster-ish praising of things like
traditional razors and single gear fixies. People going backwards while
claiming to be going forwards.

------
gcr
Great article!

Important nitpick: Dr. Mary Ainsworth (the professor who wrote about
attachment theory) is female. The article incorrectly assumes the professor
was a "he."

------
phkahler
I'm still not sure these Asian students make "better" engineers and such. They
end up in more prestigious positions due to hiring practices that make it so.
But then we see things like the critique of the Toyota software in the sudden
acceleration investigation... While over in America with it's "inferior"
education system we dominate tech. We want to be more like them, while they
want to be more like us.

~~~
Jtsummers
I wouldn't look at quality of tech from one (hardware) company and use that as
a judgement on an entire continent.

My personal view on the Toyota software problem is that Toyota has the same
problem as every American _hardware_ company I've interacted with that went
into software. Software was a necessary evil and outside their wheelhouse.
Many of them succeed at software despite themselves until something comes up
that forces them to reexamine what they're doing.

------
Noos
Hard to reconcile this with the existence of the kyouiku mama, the education
mother. I also wonder if this also isn't ignoring all the students who don't
do cram schools and who aren't salarymen capable, which is a lot of japan.
Sometimes there's too much focus on the elite.

------
throwaway89343
Does it really succeed though ? There is a hilariously cynical account of
Japan here,

[http://japaneseruleof7.com/are-japanese-people-
retarded/](http://japaneseruleof7.com/are-japanese-people-retarded/)

