

The Tiger Mother versus Cost-Benefit Analysis - yummyfajitas
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/the_tiger_mothe.html

======
zeteo
Cost-benefit analysis of various parenting styles seems like a good idea but,
when the article goes much further than that and claims that Chua's parenting
style has no benefits whatsoever, its arguments fall flat. The crucial
passage:

"But hasn't all the musical practice indelibly shaped Chua's children's
characters? Highly unlikely."

is supported by three claims, and when you follow the links that support turns
out to be rather shaky.

 _Claim 1_ : "Behavioral genetics finds roughly zero effect of parents on
personality."

 _Supporting link_ :
[http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/01/implausible_wim....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/01/implausible_wim.html)

The claim is implausible (if such parenting can make the kids neurotic, other
personality changes must certainly be possible), and the link is to an article
where the blog author is not convinced by a book arguing the contrary of this
claim. The argument is roughly analogous to saying the heliocentric theory has
zero credibility because "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" didn't contain
enough measurements.

 _Claim 2_ : "contrary to teachers' fantasies about changing their students'
lives, learning is highly specific"

 _Supporting link_ :
[http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/01/the_case_agains_...](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/01/the_case_agains_5.html)

The study cited here seems to show that German students who take Latin as a
foreign language perform no better on general intelligence measures than those
who take English. Again, the _non sequitur_ is staggering. The analogous
argument is that practicing the piano is useless, because people who practice
the violin get into colleges at least as good as those who practice the piano.

 _Claim 3_ : "the effects of environmental intervention erode over time"

 _Supporting link_ : [http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/11/fade-
out_teache....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/11/fade-
out_teache.html)

The link shows that good teachers can make students a lot better on immediate
test results than on longer-term measures of subject mastery. While this is
interesting, it has zero relevance to the main argument, which was that
grueling hours of practice have no effect on students' character.

Overall, the question posed and the approach are very interesting, but the
subsequent argumentation turns out to be shaky and implausible. What a
disappointment!

~~~
yummyfajitas
If you follow the links further, Bryan's case seems a little more solid.

 _Claim 1: ...The claim is implausible (if such parenting can make the kids
neurotic, other personality changes must certainly be possible), and the link
is to an article where the blog author is not convinced by a book arguing the
contrary of this claim. The argument is roughly analogous to saying the
heliocentric theory has zero credibility because "De revolutionibus orbium
coelestium" didn't contain enough measurements._

Bryan Caplan cites his own blog post ("Implausible Wimps"), which explains
that it's not a problem of too few measurements. From his post:

"...a massive twin and adoption literature on personality finds that family
environment has little or no effect on personality...my complaint isn't just
that Marano's case isn't airtight; my complaint is that she doesn't even try
to rebut the hereditarian presumption long-established in personality
psychology."

The book "Unequal Chances" is cited, which allegedly reviews the field and
shows that personality is primarily hereditary.

Regarding Claim 2: Caplan cites his post "Don't miss the invisible gorilla",
which in turn cites hist post "Magic Potencies", which cites the book "How
People Learn":

<http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6160>

This book appears to talk about more than just learning Latin, though it also
uses Latin as an example.

Regarding claim 3, the underlying paper being cited is here:
[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&v...](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fecon.byu.edu%2Ffaculty%2FLefgren%2FAssets%2Fpapers%2Fpersistenceformatted.pdf&ei=I_rmTML4A8Gblge0-KiODA&usg=AFQjCNHqVsT9QtugjYxywzG5PFVrn_9cbA&sig2=ALfI_x7z8ixNrFqO6vEVYw)

This particular paper attempts to measure (among other things) "how the
knowledge learned from a particular teacher influences student learning of new
material."

I think Bryan Caplan is mainly guilty of too many self links, which obscures
the original sources he is basing his opinions on.

~~~
zeteo
Maybe claim 1 is true, but I still think it's badly supported here. Without
having read "Unequal Chances", its subtitle "Family Background and Economic
Success" seems to indicate that it's not mainly concerned with personality and
character issues. The least that Caplan could do is source the relevant part
of this book directly, instead of linking to his own blog post, which only
mentions the book in one sentence with hardly any detail.

Again, about claim 2, if there is better support available, why not quote it
directly? It's hardly good writing to make an important claim that requires
the reader to go through reference to reference to reference and read a whole
book in order to find some passage that may or may not be what Caplan's claim
is based on.

Regarding claim 3, I still fail to see how that has any bearing on teacher's
influence on character. Even that weak claim is not supported, much less the
central issue whether parental influence (presumably much stronger, at least
in this context) does, or does not, affect the formation of character and
personality in their children, particularly in the case when parents choose to
be very intrusive.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Amazon's preview feature suggests Chapter 7 ("Personality and the
Intergenerational Transmission of Economic Status") is the relevant one. The
introduction also discusses "genetically based behavioral characteristics" and
how they relate to labor market success. Skimming chapter 1, it also appears
that statistics on transmission of personality traits are given.

 _Again, about claim 2, if there is better support available, why not quote it
directly?_

Agreed, Caplan should cite his sources better.

As for Claim 3, I guess it depends on what one means by "character". Caplan's
source suggests that whatever character effects do exist, they do not
significantly effect schooling.

(This would imply that character traits like conscientiousness and a desire to
appease authorities are not influenced much by environment, but perhaps not a
trait like being kind-natured would be.)

------
klodolph
This sounds a bit, well, stupid. It assumes that the only long-term benefit to
knowing how to play the piano is that you can then earn money as a musician.
Bull. He cites a paper that finds that learning _Latin_ does not affect other
test scores. He twists the results in this article by saying "X" instead of
"Latin" -- which is dishonest of him, he should have quoted what he actually
said in the other article. Numerous studies have found correlation with
musical ability and math test scores, although I'm too lazy to look them up
for a comment on HN. The other thing going on is that by practicing so
intensely you are getting better at practicing things. That is an extremely
valuable skill, or an extremely valuable habit if you wish to look at it that
way. Now I don't have any studies to back this up, so take my assertion with a
grain of salt.

What's most sad about this article is how little he sees his own cultural
bias.

He says that playing the piano is a worthless skill. I don't see how that
statement can be anything other than a value judgement about culture -- music
is culture. He says "Cost-benefit analysis is not a Western prejudice."
However, the particular cost you assign to training and the benefit you assign
to the resulting skill is inherently relative, and his judgement that forcing
a kid to learn piano is bad and knowing how to play a piano is worthless IS a
prejudice.

His main attack on the science of the book is that he says there's no evidence
that parents have any effect on a child's personality. Let's assume this is
true. So what? What about skills and habits? Aren't those important? (He
mentions skills but not habits. I assume that you can give a kid habits, such
as brushing teeth before bed.)

It's also torturous to have to read how he discusses questions #1 and #2,
which are presented up-front in the source material and don't really need 23
cm of article dedicated to them.

Now I'm not one to say that Amy Chua's method of parenting presented in "Tiger
Mother" is superior. I suspect I'd find "Tiger Mother" to be just another pop
science book. But this cost-benefit analysis is a particularly unsound attack
on the practice.

I want to see evidence, one way or the other. Sadly, it's not likely to come
any time soon.

</rant>

~~~
jancona
You should re-read the article. Caplan didn't say knowing how to play the
piano is worthless, he said "Unless you love music from the bottom of your
heart, a career in music is folly." Chua wasn't just encouraging her daughters
to practice an hour a day, she was emotionally abusing them in order to force
them to put in the huge amount of work necessary to become a professional
musician.

------
stcredzero
The most important benefits of musical education are harder to quantify than
awards in competitions. Unfortunately, the latter are easier to use as college
application fodder.

Why study music? Because it can let you explore the edges of what your fine
motor control is capable of, and what your senses and consciousness can
perceive. Because it is a doorway to the mysteries of art and being. Because
it can bring people together. Because several years of intense study can bring
someone pride in skill and deep joy and happiness for the rest of their lives.

Prioritizing a short-term gain (like enabling your kids to signal to college
admissions officers in their teens) over all of the above strikes me as
shallow. To me, there is no excuse for besmirching something so wonderful as
music by turning it into drudgery for the sake of impressing strangers.

That said, prioritizing an even shorter term gain -- like being untruthful to
your kids and praising them for looking cute and making noises so they can
experience an ersatz pride -- is an even shallower wallow in mediocrity.

~~~
kenjackson
Honestly, I wish I could play the piano so I could play piano music I like,
and more easily compose music. No financial gain, but I think I'd just enjoy
it. Unfortunately as an adult w/ little time to practice, it seems like
learning to play is not likely.

I can listen to recorded piano music, but it's not like actually playing.

~~~
stcredzero
Towards this end, it's useful and good to make your kids practice when they
are very young. Your brain is actually changed by doing music before the age
of 12, in a way that's actually visible on MRI. If I ever have kids, I'll do
this for them when they are young but let them find their own way to music or
artistic expression of some kind as young adults. (Despite the circumstance
that I'm an accomplished musician.)

If you aren't an excellent player of music yourself, but genuinely enjoy
music, the thing to do is to take your kids along to see live music, outside
of the paid perfomance context. If you can be there, taking joy in music
that's not paid for, but played for the pure joy of it, then there's a good
chance for your kids to pick up on the magic of it and be influenced to do
music for the right reasons. (Yes, I've been a firsthand witness to this
phenomenon.)

Then again, there's also a chance that it won't become your kid's thing, or
that you could lock them in a tower and forbid them to do anything musical,
and they'll still find their way to playing music. By these lights, making
your kids engage in musical drudgery in order to impress judges so they can
impress college admissions officers is about the worst thing you can do.

------
coffeedrinker
It all comes down to what you want long term and how success is measured.

My wife and I seek long-term quality relationships with our children.
Relationships are based on common value systems, regardless of what those
values are. (link to small pdf book
[http://media.blackstripespublishing.com/RelationshipAndValue...](http://media.blackstripespublishing.com/RelationshipAndValueSystem-
DarrenTwa.pdf)).

The conflict that we create over the years of parenting will affect our
relationships with our children. I never want my children to spend time with
me because they feel obligated, but because they enjoy being with me.

The goal of parenting is to get your child to adopt your value system.
Children may be grateful for what you made of them, but they still might not
like you later. For me, that is failure.

For us, parenting is a balance between pushing kids past their own laziness so
they benefit later in life, and enjoying relationship with them now and,
hopefully, in the future.

