
Why Chinese Mothers are Not Superior (from a female Chinese engineer) - cristinacordova
http://www.jeanhsu.com/?p=229
======
klenwell
A friend of mine, a mother of a gifted 5th grader wrestling with similar
issues of parental control as Amy Chua, shared the WSJ article with me today.
It reminded me of something Steven Pinker writes about in one of his books. In
his book, he breaks down the work of Judith Rich Harris
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Rich_Harris>) to this formula:

Genes have 50% influence over a child's development, peers 40%-50%, parents
the rest.

Harris's work is strongly disputed, yes. But Chua's article seems to strangely
confirm it.

By micromanaging her children's social interactions in a number of different
ways, she wrests back a significant measure of influence back from their
potential peers. I told my friend to note Chua's list of things she never lets
her kids do:

• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

Notice these are all activities that would potentially expand the influence of
her kids' peers and undermine her totalitarian regime.

Chua probably believes that its her strictness and strong principles that are
leading her children to excel. And these have their role, no doubt. But I
would propose, following Harris, it is her oppressive control of their social
lives which is the much stronger factor.

An interesting extension of her social experiment will be when it's time for
her kids to go to college (the photo accompanying the article indicated they
haven't quite got there yet.) Sure, they'll probably go to an Ivy League
school, maybe even Yale where their mother is a professor, so it won't be
complete culture shock.

Nevertheless: do her kids find peers who sustain their carefully disciplined
social lives? Does mom continue to try to control their lives at a distance?
Do they thrive with additional freedom? Or do they crack under it?

*Edited for formatting and spelling.

~~~
randrews
That's a lot like how abuse works: cut off from any social reality outside the
abuser's, you come to think you deserve it; being abused becomes normal.

Reading that WSJ article made me angry, because it's obvious that's what she's
trying to do. She wants something from her daughter (probably doesn't even
herself know what), is abusing her until she gets it, and cutting her daughter
off from any outside support so she'll put up with it.

She said that she gives praise and affection only as a reward for getting good
grades. Of course that works; the motivation to do anything to get love from
your parents is incredible.

~~~
bane
One of my friends (who happens to be Chinese and was raised in a home like
this) remarked, "but look at the kids! See their smiles? It can't possibly be
abuse!"

I replied, "have you ever seen pictures of the smiling performers in a North
Korea propaganda play?" Of course they are smiling.

1) They don't know anything else, so when they do things that bring them
positive reinforcement, they show happiness (most people prefer to be happy
than sad, so they work for those goals)

2) If they showed unhappiness, it would probably be considered a bad attitude
and pushed into a feedback loop of negative reinforcement, wanting to stay out
of that loop can make many people smile...habitually

Evidence: There are dozens of videos on youtube showing North Korean children
playing virtuoso Guitar or Xylophone or whatever smiling their fool heads off.
And there's not really a way for anybody to claim they have a fantastic,
fulfilled and successful life.

~~~
randrews
A thousand times this. Not only do abused people not know any better, they're
actively prevented from knowing any better. It's how abuse _works_.

It's especially terrible when parents do it, because children are naturally,
genetically predisposed to try to seek approval from their parents. If they
can't get it, or if it's contingent on something as arbitrary and pointless as
playing a piano, it will destroy them for life.

I'm not a parent, and after my childhood I didn't think I'd ever want to be,
but reading that article gave me new hope for myself: if anyone tried to do to
my hypothetical children what the author is doing to hers, I would kill them.
Instantly and brutally. That's got to be some kind of a qualification.

------
jzycrzy
This makes me think of Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet, where he tells a parent
their children will live in a time they can never visit or see and therefore
must let their children have their own thoughts.

The excerpt "On Children":

    
    
      Your children are not your children.
      They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself. 
      They come through you but not from you, 
      And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
    
      You may give them your love but not your thoughts,  
      For they have their own thoughts. 
      You may house their bodies but not their souls,
      For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,  which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams. 
      You may strive to be like them,  but seek not to make them like you. 
      For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
    
      You are the bows from which your children  as living arrows are sent forth. 
      The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,  and He bends you with His might  that His arrows may go swift and far. 
      Let our bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness;
      For even as He loves the arrow that flies,  so He loves also the bow that is stable.

~~~
p_nathan
That is well said.

I was chatting with a friend who is studying education for her PhD about the
article. We were unimpressed by Chua's approach and think it's quite too
extreme.

------
p_nathan
Regarding the WSJ essay - my perspective is that what Chua's kids are going
through is barbaric and will not generate well-educated, Renaissance-esque
people.

There is tremendous value in learning and discipline, and my observation of
American schools makes me think that American schools are pretty weaksauce in
the discipline and focus department. I don't think anyone out there denies
that.

To pick at a particular example of Chua - music. I am better-suited than some
others to look at this, since I myself - and my sister - spent time learning
music as children and into our college years.

Mrs Chua! Your kids do well in violin and piano. And only violin and piano.
Why violin and piano? Is the trumpet - a fine instrument! - beneath them? Or
the viola, an underappreciated sibling to the violin? Perhaps it was simply
too blue-collar to consider such an instrument as the guitar and its fine
heritage in baroque European works. Or perhaps your children's true ability
would have been in the drums. But, no, alas. It was the high-brow, well-
respected violin and piano you chose for them. How simple it is to say, "ah,
these are the respected instruments, the instruments bringing good face to
us". Mrs. Chua, you have deeply restricted your children's musical activities.
You really should not have done that. There is no call to regulate and
legislate play like that. You should have let them explore their own mind,
their own heart. They are Human beings too, and their perspective should be
taken into account for their _play_. If they sought after being a professional
musician, then there would have been time for focus, and much of it. Focus is
the hallmark of a professional! But play is something else.

~~~
nocman
I'd like to know more specifically the choice of acceptable instruments. My
observation is that the choices of piano and violin are not limited to Asian
families (at least, not in the US). There seems to be a link between people
who wish to foster academic excellence in their children, and the choice to
have them play piano and/or violin. I'd be interested to know if anyone here
has any insights as to why those particular instruments are chosen, and I'd be
even more interested to know why other instruments would be strictly
_excluded_ (whether by Asian parents or those of other heritage).

Personally, I think it is a good idea to have kids learn piano for at least a
couple of reasons. First, I think the visual layout of a piano can help attach
a physical understanding to the concept of intervals and chords (specifically
the distance between notes, and the clustering of notes in specific patterns
to form chords). For me personally, I think that was a benefit, even though I
play piano very little, and not very well. Secondly, I don't recall ever
meeting an adult who took lessons as a child for any length of time (and then
quit) who as an adult does _not_ wish they had continued. Now surely there
will be at least 7 people on HN who will now speak up, inform me that they
hated lessons as a child, happily quit when they were able and never regretted
it for a second. But unless my memory is failing me, that must mean we've
never met (or at least we've never discussed piano lessons), and thus my
statement still stands :-D To that I will add, that even with a number of "I
quit and I'm glad" entries, I still think the majority of the adults in
question wish they hadn't quit.

Oh, and a third reason to play piano: they make nice weighted, touch-sensitive
keybords now that do a pretty decent job of mimicking the feel of a real piano
(at least close enough for me), and you can move them from room to room and
house to house _by yourself_. (You won't have to get 3 to 5 of your soon to be
ex-best friends to help you). We sold our old upright piano about 3 moves ago,
and I've been celebrating the sale ever since :-D

~~~
stuartk
Did a quick search and found this:

[http://www.asian-
central.com/stuffasianpeoplelike/2008/03/17...](http://www.asian-
central.com/stuffasianpeoplelike/2008/03/17/37-piano-violin/)

Essentially, they are seen as the most 'refined' instruments to learn and
play.

The piano is chosen as you need to learn both treble and bass clef to play,
the violin because they are portable and light enough for very young children
to hold.

From tfa.

~~~
nocman
OK, well that might explain the Asian preference. But I'd like to hear from a
source that is _not_ explicitly Asian (since I've seen the same choices in
many non-Asian groups).

------
vsingh
The "Chinese mother" approach to raising children is based around motivations
at the second-highest level of Maslow's hierarchy:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Ne...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg)

While this aggressive approach to parenting can be made to sound right on a
certain dispassionate level, to some people it just feels intensely wrong in a
way that's hard to explain. Why is that?

What happens is that children raised to heavily optimize "Esteem" have a hard
time switching gears into "Self-actualization". It's no surprise that the
"Chinese mother" disallows her child from starring in the school play. That
would be a means of self-expression; it would throw a monkey wrench in the
whole works.

I've found many times in life that in order to self-actualize further, I've
had to give up things that others praised. I think that in quitting Google and
joining a startup (despite her parents' likely disapproval), the author has
taken a big step towards self-actualization.

~~~
ecuzzillo
This is not intended to exactly disagree: Many times when people cite the
Maslow hierarchy, they often to take it as an axiom that the hierarchy is
completely exactly how people work, and to lead better lives, people must go
about fulfilling exactly these needs in this order.

As someone who presumably subscribes to the hierarchy, would you agree that
you seem fairly certain that this is how it works? And, if so, can you say
why?

At minimum, I'd say that it's not obvious to me that the order specified by
the hierarchy is really in evidence. For example, I believe I've witnessed a
fair number of people I'd say were self-actualized and esteemed who are fairly
short on the friendship/family/sexual-intimacy front.

~~~
vsingh
No, I do not believe in a strict order imposed by the hierarchy. My view,
which I've come to through studying both Maslow's Hierarchy and Dabrowski's
Theory of Positive Disintegration, is that you're able to operate at the
highest level you've so far achieved during your lifetime, even if one of the
lower levels is missing. For example, one who had all five levels fulfilled
during childhood will be capable of self-actualization in later life even
during periods of physical or fiscal insecurity.

~~~
gintas
What's the point of a "hierarchy" then, if the "upper" levels do not depend on
the "lower" ones? Basically what you're saying here is a tautology: one is
able to operate at a "level" that, well, one is able to operate at.

~~~
tome
It's clear that vsingh claims that you need to fulfill the lower levels to
reach the higher ones for the first time.

------
jamesli
I thought it was a satire at first when i read the original article in WSJ. I
was astounded that Ms. Amy Chua was serious. How arrogant it is! It also makes
me wonder why WSJ published such an apparently ridiculous article. What are
the essential differences between claiming Chinese mother supremacy from white
supremacy?

Both my wife and I are Chinese. We have two lovely children. They are like
free range chickens in our house and in the school. We showed them how to use
Google, Wikipedia, Webster, etc. so that they can look for knowledge they are
interested by themselves. They had their own gmail accounts when they were
four years old. My older child had Twitter account when he was six, before my
wife ever heard of Twitter. :)

Because we believe love, trust, and confidence are most important for them to
live a good life. The utmost goal of our education is for them to be
independently thinkers, to work hard, to be creative, to have sympathy, to do
right things for this society.

And I have confidence to say there are many Chinese parents holding the same
belief as we do.

~~~
bm98
> It also makes me wonder why WSJ published such an apparently ridiculous
> article.

Chua is trying to drum up interest for her new book on the same topic which
goes on sale today. Her publisher, Penguin Books, is owned by Pearson PLC.
Rupert Murdoch and News Corp (which owns the WSJ) has plenty of history with
Pearson -- owning a significant stake in the company in the 80's, buying
HarperCollins from Pearson in the 90's, competing with Pearson's Financial
Times lately. I don't know if there is any Murdoch ownership in Pearson now,
or any publishing agreements between the two companies, but I doubt the WSJ
article was published based on editorial reasons alone.

------
jasonyyun
I don't want to start another topic, so I'll leave this - an excellent
response from a user on Quora on the topic:
[http://www.quora.com/Parenting/Is-Amy-Chua-right-when-she-
ex...](http://www.quora.com/Parenting/Is-Amy-Chua-right-when-she-explains-Why-
Chinese-Mothers-Are-Superior-in-an-op-ed-in-the-Wall-Street-
Journal/answer/Christine-Lu)

~~~
nuggien
she seems to be blaming her mother for driving her sister towards depression
and suicide. Kinda harsh. Could have been something else.

~~~
mechanical_fish
Not exactly. Depression killed her sister. She blames her mother for training
her sister to hide that depression at all costs.

She may never know "why" the depression happened (as if there needs to be a
reason) but unfortunately she probably has a pretty good idea of why her
sister didn't turn to family for help.

------
bane
Extremely well written, and echoes many of the comments in the quora thread
(and in my own observations).

There's a logic to it all though, in China for example, there isn't really any
reward to be a big risk taker, and the downsides can be huge (social
isolation, imprisonment, worse). Success then is to follow directions, do what
you are told, and do it with supreme competence.

This is often discussed in terms of the traditional Confucian Academies, and
how dedicated studies could lead a peasant into a life of government service
and success and pride for his family. But one has to look at _what_ a
classical Confucian education entails, literacy for sure -- but it was
basically a monumental task of rote memorization. Unfortunately, Chinese
parents who try to replicate this on their American born kids are doomed
because they haven't quite gotten the message that those things aren't as
valued here.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_classics>

~~~
jeanhsu
thanks! agreed--what is necessary for success is completely different here,
yet many Chinese parents still think there is a magic formula, and that they
know it!

~~~
bane
It seems to go both ways too. I find Americans can have a hard time being
successful in other countries with vastly different socio-economic cultures as
well. (ref: U.S. Investment Failure in newly capitalist Russia and China).

------
yardie
I'm a constant immigrant and I can say this is not really a Chinese phenomena,
but probably has more to do with immigrant mindset. I think because she is a
successful driven professor she has upped the ante on this. So, in addition to
what her mother considers successful she has added the cutthroat business and
academic world of what is considered successful, then drummed that into her
kids and got a book deal out of it.

As an immigrant from a caribbean island I see where she is coming from almost
perfectly. Immigrants to the US aren't, in general, ditch diggers and
gardeners. It requires a clean record, education, and motivation. Then when
you arrive in the US the state isn't required to give you anything. From the
moment you land, you and your family are basically on your own to find housing
and work, though they do have local outreach programs to help in this. This
survivorship mode carries on even when you are successful and especially when
you have kids. My mom had few words for me, "STUDY!" and "What did you learn
today?". "I love you", was reserved for birthdays and Christmas. Playing was
reserved for weekends and summer breaks.

The one thing she did impart to me was motivation. At some point, when work
demanded more from her, I had to be completely self-sufficient (or as much as
a 10 year old could be). I was looking after my brother and sisters, studying,
and running the household by myself (notice I haven't mentioned my
father...long story). I enrolled in music courses, summer study courses, and
enrolled at a magnet school. My mother stopped pushing me to excel and I
started doing it on my own.

Now, I've moved to another country and started a family. And that same
immigrant psychology of sink or swim has manifested in me. My son is only 3
but I'm pushing him to excel academically. I've said some of the same words to
him that Chua has told her daughters (minus the verbal abuse). And I think at
some point he will also be self sufficient, no angry mother or father leaning
over his should to make sure he does his work or chores.

At the same time, the relationship I have with our mother is vastly different
than what my brother and sisters have with her. I speak to her like a soldier
speaks to an officer. They speak to her like a child to speaks to a mother.
I'm really jealous that they have this type of relationship, and they are
jealous that I'm the golden son.

~~~
sethg
Classic joke: “What’s a Jewish dropout? A boy without a Ph.D.”

------
roadnottaken
Everybody likes to give their parents credit/blame for everything (good and
bad) but that overlooks the fact that people have different personalities that
are surprisingly inborn and resilient. David Brooks has a line somewhere (I'll
try to dig it up) where he says the most important thing is to be a "good
enough" parent: provide a safe environment where your kids are encouraged and
stimulated. It's not necessary to be a super-parent. Extraordinary people are
not solely the product of parenting and the main thing is to shepherd your
kids through childhood so they can reach adulthood without any scars.

------
aothman
The point about turning out a generation of clones is spot on, and ultimately
the cruelest irony of the whole thing. The best way to get into an elite
college is by standing out as an individual; the colleges asian parents
desperately want their kids to attend deal with the "asian clone" thing by
rejecting the lot of them. The asian kid with a 1560 SAT and state violin
awards (probably) isn't getting into Harvard, but if he had substituted
kicking field goals for every minute he practiced violin...

~~~
muhfuhkuh
"The asian kid with a 1560 SAT and state violin awards (probably) isn't
getting into Harvard"

18% of Harvard students are Asian, so yeah, he (probably) would. And, that's
with a long-standing policy of "ethnic cleansing" in Asian matriculation[1].

[1][http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/2/19/affirmatives-
of-...](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/2/19/affirmatives-of-
affirmative-action-a-study/)

~~~
nano81
That doesn't really nullify his point - what percentage of applicants were
Asian?

~~~
muhfuhkuh
It really does nullify the point. If, as he claims, Harvard were trying to
actively prevent the "asian clones" from invading, they would not allow a
minority that makes up only 4% of the general population take almost up almost
1/5th of the slots, especially when you're underrepresenting whites, blacks,
AND hispanics in the process (again, as a percentage of the general
population).

But, to answer your question, 23% of total applicants are Asian-American, and
18% of total accepted are Asian-American[1]. So, yeah, little Johnny Violin is
likely getting into Harvard.

[1]<http://www.asianam.org/2006.htm>

PS, yes, my math was totally mucked up. Thanks for pointing that out :D It
should be around 8% acceptance, which is actually less than the acceptance
rate overall. Hmmm... so I guess they are rejecting them in droves.

~~~
benmccann
That does not mean the acceptance rate is near 80%.

Imagine 100 people apply, 50 of which are Asian. 5 people get in, 1 of which
is Asian. 20% of the total accepted are Asian, but the acceptance rate among
Asians is 2% and 8% for other races.

------
T-R
> _In reality they are just molding all their kids to look exactly the same on
> paper._

I wasn't expecting this argument, but it reminds me a lot of how the RECRUIT
company has managed to commoditize the workforce in Japan. By unifying
applications and highlighting only certain traits, they've created a system
where applicants all try to maximize only those specific traits (grades,
entrance exam scores, TOEFL scores, etc.). On the other hand, companies mostly
only see those traits, so they'll throw out an application if anything
slightly negative shows up, whether it's that you've ever quit a job, or that
your handwritten resume had less-than-perfect penmanship.

Optimizing for a small set of traits probably actually works well to a degree
in the U.S. specifically because not everyone is optimizing for those same
traits.

------
felipe
I am a western (Brazilian-American) living in China.

All this drilling and tests may sound crazy, but I do think it teaches an
important value that is missing in the west's education: _discipline_

My wife is a teacher. She taught kids in the US (California) and here in
China. One difference is that in the US a huge amount of her preparation time
is spent on making lessons interesting to students, otherwise they disconnect.
In China she is more focused on the lesson's subject matter, rather than
tweaking the lesson for entertainment / attention value.

True, Chinese education does not value creativity or self-expression like in
the west (and Chinese students are aware of that). But the lack of discipline
is not the way to go IMO.

Jean Hsu's post is wonderful, by the way.

~~~
bluekeybox
> in the US a huge amount of her preparation time is spent on making lessons
> interesting to students, otherwise they disconnect. In China she is more
> focused on the lesson's subject matter, rather than tweaking the lesson for
> entertainment / attention value.

I came to the U.S. from Eastern Europe and went to a U.S. college. The
introductory science textbooks were all guilty of this. The biology textbooks
especially were simply unbearable to me. What makes learning material
interesting to an American kid is not necessarily going to make it interesting
to someone outside of the American culture. Also, some smarter kids are simply
bored by the lame attempts of textbook publishers to add "pizzas" to make the
material appear "interesting." Smarter kids just want content, in the most
concise form possible, so that it would not take a lot of time to read and
understand it.

The thing that struck me most about American education: kids carrying around
huge heavy backpacks with huge heavy glossy textbooks in them (those books
would have cost a month's salary from where I was originally from) that were
full of either cartoon-like drawings in poorly chosen colors or "stories" in
colored boxes that all had very little to do with actual content and talked
down to me as if I were mentally challenged. Oh, and those textbooks were
published like every year or so in a new edition, so that you could not resell
once you bought one and used it for the course. I was extremely happy when I
got to graduate-level courses because it meant no more of those retarded
textbooks.

~~~
mnutt
This reminds me of Why The Lucky Stiff's response to a critique of Why's
Poignant Guide to Ruby:

[http://web.archive.org/web/20080526055424/redhanded.hobix.co...](http://web.archive.org/web/20080526055424/redhanded.hobix.com/cult/whatSWrongWithRubyHahYeahItSMe.html)

"The problem here is: the author of the article is trying to do academics, to
gain knowledge, to build a career. And my cartoons and stories have patronized
him, belittled him, by treating him as if he wasn’t a real professional. This
is a terrible breach of conduct. He has accolades innumerable. He has done no
small deed. His peers are all gathered around him, wishing him the best and
swelling with nothing but respect and esteem for him. NOW WHAT IS THIS CARTOON
BOOK DOING HERE??"

On a more serious note, it sounds like you were just above the level of
material that the textbooks were trying to teach, or maybe the format just
didn't work for you. But why shouldn't learning be fun?

~~~
bluekeybox
Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby is sooo not like a typical introductory biology
textbook that it's not even a comparison. W(p)GtR is hip, to-the-point,
artistic, witty, with a distinctive voice, intelligently executed, and
actually fun. A typical introductory biology textbook is usually designed by a
committee with no actual UI design experience and has all the sex appeal of a
fifty-something guy with male pattern baldness and bear belly who wears
pleated khakis with a cell phone holster on the belt repeating a few slang
phrases he memorized in order to seem cool.

It's like Calvin and Hobbes comic vs Microsoft Bob -- sad, really.

Basically the lesson is that if you don't know your audience (also when your
audience consists of the entire young population of a country as diverse as
the U.S., which is the case with textbooks), do not try to pull off cool and
fun, because many people's idea of cool and fun is very different from yours.
And if you must try to be cool/fun, hire some people who actually know how to
be cool/fun in the first place.

------
stcredzero
_While trying to give them an academic advantage, these parents are really
stunting their personal and social development._

This rings true in my experience. I don't think my parents understood the
difference between substantive (and personal) success and societal success.
Actually, for me the pervasive and insistent message was that my passions do
not matter and are probably wrong and bad.

 _Their narrow-minded formula for success (great grades, ivy league, medical
school, high paying job) may work for some, but it alienates those who might
find success elsewhere._

I was one of these kids. At middle age I am still dealing with the emotional
scars and just starting to find my true place in the world.

------
dheerosaur
I came across <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan> when I was
reading about Japan on Wikipedia. It led me to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame_society> which says that the high suicide
rate may be attributed to the societal structure. These societies set high
standards for individuals and that may result in high performance from the
society but, at the same time, may depress under-achievers to such an extent
that people commit suicides.

~~~
p90x
I've heard people bring up the argument of suicides when this subject comes up
before. But I don't think it is a valid point because you are cherry picking
statistics.

If you want to make a more fair comparison you would need to look at a variety
of factors to get a overall picture.

Would it be fair for an Asian to look at the USA and pick something like
school shootings ( or drug use, or criminality, or teen pregnancy - which ever
stat makes the USA look worse) to attack the entire American style of
parenting? Obviously it wouldn't be.

------
niels_olson
Another "strict parents" story, also coincidentally Asian:
<http://www.asiacarrera.com/bio2.html>

~~~
mbubb
An interesting example. In a job I wouldn't necessarily wish on anyone - but
she ran her own website and was to some extent her own producer. This was
before porn became socially acceptable.

I am not sure why you cite her example. Is it "see - if you push too hard they
will run off and become porn stars!!!" ?

Or - is this the case: Here is someone who had the native intelligence and
creativity and entrepreneurial wherewithal to take a basically crappy,
exploitive situation and shape it to some extent.

Not to say it is a utopian existence but she did this before there was a
culture industry that produces Jenna Jameson (sp?) type of success with all of
the open merchandising and acceptance.

The 'Chinese Mom' (in this case German and Japanese -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Carrera>) quite possible helped in this
case. And according to the wikipedia entry she herself is raising her kids in
a 'conservative' manner.

------
mbubb
I read that WSJ article and had it clanking around in my head for a few
days... I was countering it with some of the 'free-range' parenting styles you
read about.

The most valid insight of the article was that some things (ie - violin,
number theory, LISP, organic chemistry) are inherently hard and require
discipline to get through the 'rote-learning' boring parts. The 'touchy-
feely', "let's make math interesting" style of parenting/ teaching misses
this. There is something to 3 hours of violin vs 45 minutes and 2 hours of TV
as a reward...

I am no 'Chinese Mom' but see that this style of parenting is best for a kid
who has certain proclivities. If they have an impulse towards music it is
important for them to push them selves past the drudgery of practicing scales
onto real accomplishment.

If the kid hates music then drop it and find something else. But push them
enough so that they understand that if they work through the initial tough
part some real beauty lies ahead.

------
toblender
As an Engineer with a crazy controlling Chinese father. I know parents make a
big difference in the early years. I've experienced not having attend sleep
overs, any extracurricular/sports, friends over, or phone calls. Most
prisoners have more freedom. My dad being a teacher back in China, ended up
giving me hours of extra homework on top of the regular easy stuff from
school.

Sure your kids may get into med school or become that lawyer, but I'm almost
certain at some point they are going to hate you for ruining their childhood.
Also they are just going to develop bingeing personalities and have overloads
the moment you take your eyes off them.

------
patrickgzill
One thing I will grant about the original book and the controversy about it
... whatever the publicist got, was worth it.

------
flannell
I graduated in '99 with a 2.1 CompSci degree - the year a Chinese chap threw
himself off the top of an 10-storey engineering building because he couldn't
go back with a 2.1 degree.

------
qiqiyan
Does it occur to anyone that the eastern/western parenting styles can be
easily mixed?

When it comes to things like being honest, making good use of time, never give
up easily, commitment to hard work, it doesn't hurt to exercise the eastern
parenting style to force the kids to form these habits. The kids will thank
you later.

When it comes to what the kids should do as hobby/career, the kids should be
given a lot of freedom, as one can only do well in stuff that he/she's truly
passionate about.

------
didip
I was raised like this as well and surrounded by Asian parents who do this. I
see a few of my Asian peers, as young parents, exercising the totalitarian
technique as well.

I supposed, in the end, my dad did it. I accomplished all his goals at
relatively young age. But that comes with a huge cost. I never see him as a
loving caring dad. He is always the target to beat. Sucks to be him now, old
and alone.

This article and other Asians who follow Amy Chua's style of parenting rarely
see this one perspective:

The oppressive technique is cargo-culted to death among Asian parents. It is
used by Asian parents who themselves, are not successful like some sort of
miracle drugs.

This technique only works IF the parents themselves are successful. If the
parents are lazy, glutton, and messy, there is no way this technique will make
the kids dapper and discipline.

For those of you who suffer/ed Asian parents oppression, there's always the
satirical: <http://highexpectationsasianfather.tumblr.com>

------
yason
(Parenting anecdote warning)

From my kids, I demand that they do their share of work (at home and later, in
life), that they be kind and respect other people (but it's okay that other
people may not always like it when someone sets their limits), and that they
don't continue to do things for wrong reasons without thinking about it first
(like doing stuff to mostly impress other people).

I listen to what they want and try to hear what's true. I give them few things
only: kids always want a lot of things but I do force them to prioritize and
think it over a couple of times, so that they will learn to listen themselves
to what they really want. And that they will learn to appreciate the value of
what they have. You can't have everything in life or everything will lose its
value.

I let them make choices themselves, given that some final limitations are
followed. For example, they can wear what they like as long as I've checked
they've got enough clothing so that they'll be warm. When they're spending
_their_ money, they can do whatever they want with it. For example, they can
invest _all their money_ in candy; however, I don't let them _eat_ candy every
day all over the week as we have specific days for goodies.

That's pretty much it. I don't have any vocational or educational goals or
hobby-wise demands for them. I trust that they will eventually do what they
simply can't not do. Long idle periods may precede but that's okay. As long as
you're alive, time is indefinite.

I don't claim to have—or gain—control over their lives and choices, barring
some rules they as kids need require and with regard to the physical world. I
consider it good to be humble enough to understand that I have no idea
whatsoever of what's best for them in _their_ lives. I might have an idea or
two about what I would do and I sometimes talk about that but I don't dare
suggest they had to follow.

I don't always know how to do all that. But most of the time I think I get it
right eventhough I'm still learning myself. I'll just mostly try to be there
when they need support. And that's hard and demanding too, and I think that
too often I can't do that either.

But I'm pretty confident that when a couple of kids live with me for about 18
years in a rather intimate living arragement, something _will stick_ and that
imprint will be close to what I wanted to say. Time only will tell if I turn
out to be right or wrong but I merely hope they'll find it valuable, one way
or another.

------
jchonphoenix
I'm not really sure whether to agree or disagree. I have asian parents and
went through the whole ordeal.

I can honestly say that, as a kid, I didn't enjoy it, but then again, I can't
imagine anyone would.

However, I definitely would not be as knowledgeable, intelligent, or well
brought up without the asian schooling.

This article and most people against asian parenting's viewpoint is from the
outsiders viewpoint. They all see the brutality of it and think "how could you
treat your child like that." On the flipside however, it is undeniable that
asians outperform westerners. Parenting likely has something to do with it.

I'm not saying one side is right or the other. I'm just noting that there's a
statistical imbalance and unless we're all willing to admit asian genes are
superior to all others, outside influence must be responsible and
parenting/culture is the most likely culprit.

~~~
rgrieselhuber
> it is undeniable that asians outperform westerners

[Citation needed]

~~~
xiaoma
At least in the context of the US (which was the topic of the article):

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_American#Education>
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Race_6_figure_household_an...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Race_6_figure_household_and.png)

~~~
rgrieselhuber
Looking at the breakdown, then perhaps Indian mothers are the superior ones?
:-)

The point is that optimizing along one or two metrics such as income or
education is myopic (which was the actual topic of the article), especially
when you don't take into consideration the associated costs (opportunity and
otherwise).

~~~
xiaoma
Look, you asked for a citation and I spent, apparently wasted, my time getting
you two. Looking at income, education, percentage of children born out of
wedlock, incarceration rates, and a number of other metrics, those of asian
are doing very well compared to whites, blacks, and latinos.

If you want to pick your pet metric and explain why asians actually aren't
doing so well, then _you_ should provide citations and make your case.

------
ernestipark
I read the original article and honestly couldn't tell if it was a satire or
not. I appreciate the honesty of the writer of this blog post though.

~~~
temugen
I honestly thought the WSJ essay was as good or better than A Modest Proposal.

------
lionhearted
A contrary viewpoint:

After studying a number of different cultures and backgrounds and histories,
I'm generally an admirer of the school of parenting laid out by Chua. Well, I
think some of the more insulting/demeaning/negative-reinforcement isn't so
great, but the overall focus on achievement and duty as superior to having
fun... I do respect that. I'll explain why -

I used to think the opposite until I read Andre Agassi's autobiography, "Open"
- Agassi was one of the top tennis players in the world, hit #1 multiple
times, and generally achieved tremendously a lot. He's now married to Stefi
Graff, the top women's tennis player of all time, and they have two kids and
seem like a really healthy and happy family.

In his book, Agassi talks about hating tennis. He really does. His father, an
immigrant to the USA from Iran, _drilled_ tennis into him obsessively from a
young age, constantly telling him he's going to be #1 in the world.

Agassi was miserable a lot of that time.

So, why do I think it's a good style of parenting?

Because people from the driven overachieving backgrounds don't realize that
people with more normal lives go through their own sorts of miseries. If
anything, I think Western culture leaves people directionless and in angst and
miserable through their younger years more often than not.

The kid that just follows the minimum program, hangs out, drifts around, gets
high a lot, and then wakes up at age 42 with no professional success, no real
social circle, no accomplishments, no family, no skills, working at
Starbucks...

...y'know, it's socially acceptable to criticize people for overachieving and
striving at the expense of other things, but it's not really socially
acceptable to criticize people for mediocrity. It's kind of taboo to put down
that people who spend their youth chasing pleasure frequently break down into
full-on existential crises and madness later in life.

The vast majority of people don't self-actualize and don't achieve real
meaning in their lives. Most people ascribe this to their background and
external things. So you sometimes see people people who grow up under intense
parenting styles say, "Well yes I tended to achieve more, but I was unhappy" -
maybe, but remember that the grass is always greener on the other side...

I'll say one very real downside of the intensive parenting style - it has a
much higher variance/standard deviation of results. You're likely to make it
very professionally successful, or completely break down under the pressure.
That's the downside. But overall, would someone like Andre Agassi have been
happier if he'd just farted along and been a middle manager at some
warehousing/shipping company in Nevada? Yeah, he often hated tennis and hated
his father, but in the end he inspired millions of people, got to experience
triumphs most people will never feel, achieved a complete mastery and harmony
between his mind and body in competition, built a family with an absolutely
incredible woman, and lots of other good things.

There's downsides, sure. But the grass is always greener on the other side. I
could point out my opinions as to the flaws of any given parenting style, but
I find the duty/achievement end of the spectrum to seem closer to overall
well-being than the reverse.

~~~
sown
I was raised like this. My mom showed me no real love, nor did my family. I
buckled under the pressure and when the time came for any real emotional
support, they abandoned me in an attempt to get me to "try harder." I never
forgave them and I don't talk to them any more.

In the end, regardless of how they felt or their intentions, I was made out to
be nothing more than an ornament, a product for the glory of the family name.

I get the impression you were not on the receiving end of this sort of
treatment, and I mean the real receiving end. The constant drumbeat of
criticism, the cutting remarks, the dread of never living up to the horizon of
expectation, never catching it.

I hate my family for what they did, and frankly, I hate you for advocating it,
for encouraging a parent to make some other child's life miserable beyond
imagining so you can placate your ideal about overachieving.

I am a real god damned human being. I am not "just one of those cases" that
didn't work out.

PS: The real shit-kicker is that eventually I did get it together on my own
terms, with just OK grades by even my own standards and graduated from some
out-of-state land grant university. Some of those other kids who got straight
As or whatever, some whom went to Cal or Stanford, whom spent their youth
jumping through hoops for their parents' affections, work at the same place I
do, writing shitty enterprise code.

~~~
EthanEtienne
You should leave in the "fuck you". That emotional response is apt in to
convey how much this screws up people.

~~~
khafra
> You should leave in the "fuck you".

Only if he'd say it to lionhearted in person, over a dinner conversation, per
the HN etiquette guide. He's certainly within his rights to feel strongly
about this, and to convey his belief in the harm caused by the demanding,
uncompromising style of child-rearing; but there should be a way to do that
with a modicum of tact.

~~~
Retric
I did not see the original format, but I have seen "You know what, fuck you!"
said over the dinner table in such a situation. A short expletive is IMO
appropriate for denoting intense emotional reaction.

It would seem odd if someone said "wow, this hurts would you mind backing your
car off my leg" to the point where you might wonder if you had actually driven
over them. However, "Back your @#%$ car off my #%^@&^ leg is less ambiguous".
So, if your having dinner with the queen it's probably not appropriate but "I
was deeply hurt by their actions" is somewhat emotionally ambiguous.

~~~
billybob
So you're saying that one can't express strong emotions in writing without
swearing?

------
nsoonhui
I hope I don't sound too racist or anti-Semite.

Why is it that when a Jewish mother does the same as the Asian mother, no one
complains?

I'm a Chinese btw.

~~~
hristov
No one complains ???? Have you not watched TV in the last 10 years? There are
entire genres of comedy mostly devoted to jews complaining about their
parents.

When art historians analyze late 20th and early 21st century culture, they
will certainly coin the jewish-complaining art movement, which spanned
television, movies and stand up comedy for like 30 years, and is still running
strong with Curb your Enthusiasm.

~~~
krakensden
It's also worth noting that this isn't a Jewish or Chinese phenomenon, it's an
immigrant thing. There isn't much Jewish immigration to the US anymore, and
cultural divisions aren't as sharp. There is, on the other hand, still strong
emigration from China, which is why this behavior is now thought of as a
"Chinese" phenomenon.

------
gaoshan
Just to throw this out there and give an actual Chinese mom perspective on
this...

The two Chinese mothers I know well here in the U.S. (my wife and her cousin)
both of whom were born and raised in China, both of whom have 2 children of
about the same age as the original author and both of whom are similarly
educated to the woman who wrote the original article this one is in response
to, were disturbed by the message and methods presented. They found it
abusive, excessive and wrong and have been mailing links to this to all of
their friends in anger.

------
Quarrelsome
I've met people that were raised like that and they're broken.

They lack the volition to do things by themselves and are unable to make their
own choices. I used to converse a lot with a girl brought up in this manner
and if you asked the question: "why" a lot about the things she did or was
about to do (like planning to go to a particular college) you would ultimately
end up with: "I don't know".

Also I would bet that those kids are bullied to at least some extent at
school. They would have been at mine at least. :D

------
arethuza
From that WSJ article:

"What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you're good at
it."

I always thought it was your unlikely to get good at anything that you don't
find fun.

------
kenjackson
There's truth in both articles. While I had lots of fun as a kid I certainly
wish I was better at more things. Although with that said, most of the things
I wish I was better at are probably things Chinese mothers wouldn't really
push: basketball, dancing, drawing/art, and piano (this they clearly do
support).

But parenting is hard. At the end of the day, if my kids are happy, nice,
respectful, and can afford the things they want, I'll be happy for them.

------
danielrhodes
There's clearly some correlation between Chua's approach and 'success' as it
is narrowly defined within an academic spectrum. However, in practice I think
such methods discourage failure so strongly that the children grow up to
choose only the narrow paths which guarantee success, and don't explore
outwards.

------
hristov
My sisters are in high school and it is one of those overachiever schools.
They say a lot of their friends are nervous wrecks because of pressure their
parents put on them about getting into a top college, and a lot of kids
actually turn to drugs for that reason.

------
to_the_top
its a problem in Canada: <http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/10/too-asian/>

------
queensnake
Best retort I've seen, of this:

    
    
        http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/01/why_chinese_mothers_are_not_su.html

------
p90x
Am I the only one who thought that Amy Chua's article was more than a little
'tongue in cheek'?

------
hippo33
Excellent response. Well balanced and honest.

------
tastybites
Just my couple of cents worth of first hand input...

Most Chinese families aren't crazy-obsessed with achievement - I'd say about
1/4 of them exhibit this kind of insane behavior, but that's still a very,
very high rate, which is where this stereotype comes from. The rest are
similar to their high-achieving white counterpart families.

Just as a data point, my two parents (two MDs and one PhD, yeah, it could have
been real, real bad) weren't like this. I had a very normal childhood. I did
all the things that white kids do.

I would like to bring up a possibility, which is possibly controversial: a lot
of these kids let themselves be trampled on by their parents. In addition to
(probably) being bullied at school, they are bullied at home by their parents.
I really wish they would do more to stand up for themselves. They can't be
blamed, though, as their will has been systematically removed by the parents
in most cases.

Overall, this whole thing is a great example of very smart people doing very
stupid things.

A not unrelated issue is the high rate of Asian American girls/women who
refuse to date and marry Asian guys. It's so blindingly obvious as to why, I'm
surprised anyone ever has to ask the question.

~~~
Jem
"I would like to bring up a possibility, which is possibly controversial: a
lot of these kids let themselves be trampled on by their parents. In addition
to (probably) being bullied at school, they are bullied at home by their
parents. I really wish they would do more to stand up for themselves."

I can imagine that only someone who has never been through years of systematic
abuse / bullying would lay the blame on the victim.

~~~
tastybites
> I can imagine that only someone who has never been through years of
> systematic abuse / bullying would lay the blame on the victim.

I'm Chinese and I know plenty of folks who went through this abuse. I know
many kids who _did_ stand up to the abuse - and as a kid who stood up to my
parents (and whose parents changed because of it), I despise this horrible
stereotype and wish more kids would muster the constitution to fight it.

You can only imagine nothing. If you weren't brought up in or witness to this
kind of environment I don't even really know how you can make conclusions in
your imagination about me.

~~~
Jem
I'm not Chinese, but I was abused for 7 years by a member of my own family. It
wasn't until 8 years after it stopped that I finally plucked up the courage to
tell someone about it. That someone can sit there and say that it happened
because I didn't stand up for myself, and then go on to defend that view when
pulled up on it, deeply bothers me.

Just because you're Chinese, or "know someone who was abused", doesn't mean
you know what it's like to be that kind of victim. It's fuck all to do with
not having "the constitution to fight it" and everything to do with being
destroyed from the inside out.

Good for you for having the guts to fight it though, eh?

------
kahawe
I am sorry, the WSJ article seemed like a lot of trolling to me. It never
touched on the subject of why Chinese mothers are allegedly "superior" at
bringing up "better" or "more successful" children (whatever that may be).
Instead it took a long and round-about way of justifying why indeed Chinese
mothers are "a superior" to their kids whom they seem to constantly boss
around - with the best intentions.

I think Jean Hsu was spot on in her article, however: all this commanding and
strict parenting just has to REALLY numb down the kid's initiative and will to
"play" and "explore", try new things and learn on their own.

This may sound very harsh but for me, this bossing around just creates busy
drones at best and at worst those kids will be very, very much lacking any
orientation, motivation, initiative and a unique personality of sorts.

How can you find happiness on your own when the close bond with the person who
has been controlling your life for 20, 25 years is suddenly gone?

------
DisposaBoy
I'm sorry for going OT and I know this isn't reddit but it has to be said
because everyone knows that...

> Japanese girls are superior!

------
toephu
Goto China and meet real Chinese. ABCs are not real Chinese. They are bananas.
Yellow on the outside, White on the inside.

