Sunday, January 12, 2014

Enough with Amy Chua Bashing

Amy Chua, of the "Tiger Mother" fame, is in the news again. Many readers emailed me to ask what I thought of her new, forthcoming book, which apparently attempts to find the success factors of various ethnic and cultural groups in the United States. Short answer: I will reserve my full judgment until after I read the book, but my initial impression is not positive, as it sounds more like a hare-brained exercise in culturalism rather than a rigorous examination.

But this post is not about Amy Chua or her new book. This post is about the reaction of Asian Americans that Chua's new book triggered. Once the scathing New York Post preview of Chua's new book came out, (some) Asian Americans immediately burst into outrage. Much of the outrage was dedicated to busting the Asian American stereotype Chua appeared to enforce. And a smaller, but vocal, fraction of the outrage was directed at Chua herself, and the concept of Tiger Parenting.

This post is about that smaller fraction. I believe the Asian American outrage against Chua and Tiger Parenting is misguided. But first, let me be clear: I am not here to defend Tiger Parenting. The way I feel about Tiger Parenting is hardly a secret. I believe I made a solid case in favor of Tiger Parenting already; if I did not convince you then, I don't expect to convince you now. Again, this post is not about Chua herself, or her new book, or even about Tiger Parenting. It is about how we Asian Americans who wish to fight the stereotypes ought to know the correct target for our outrage.

*                        *                         *

Suppose two African American diners visit a restaurant. Once they sit down, a Caucasian waiter comes to the table and informs that the dinner special for that day will be fried chicken. The first diner considers the menu, considers the special, and orders fried chicken because it sounds delicious. The second diner also considers the menu, and considers the special. Then the second diner looks at the white waiter, looks around to find a great number of white diners around their table, and reminds himself about the pernicious stereotype regarding black folks and fried chicken. He then orders something else from the menu.

In this example, which diner truly enforced the stereotype about African Americans and fried chicken--the first diner who simply ordered what she wanted to eat, or the second diner who decided his dinner to oppose the prevailing stereotype? What if the second diner berated the first diner for daring to order what she felt like having for dinner? Would he be justified in doing so?

This hypothetical is akin to how some Asian Americans react to Amy Chua. And the answers to the questions above, to me, are clear: it is the second diner that does more to enforce the stereotype, and his criticism of the first diner is misguided.

(More after the jump.)

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.





My answer may sound counter-intuitive. The stereotype is that African Americans are unduly fond of fried chicken, and the first diner ordered fried chicken. How did she not enforce the stereotype? But this line of thinking is short-sighted, for it confuses the fundamental error of stereotypes. The fundamental problem of stereotypes is not that there exist some individuals who fit the stereotypes. The fundamental problem of stereotypes is that they are made to fit everyone in a given group.

To understand this distinction, it is critically important to understand who operates the stereotypes. Going back to the example of two African American diners, it must be understood that an African American who simply orders what she feels like having is not the one who imposes the stereotype on all black people. Rather, it is the mainstream society that imposes the stereotype that all African Americans are genetically predisposed to prefer fried chicken. Likewise, it is not Amy Chua that imposes the Model Minority stereotype on Asian Americans. Rather, it is the mainstream society that imposes the Model Minority stereotype on all Asian Americans.

Note that none of this depends on the relative merits of the thing or the action that underlies the stereotype. One can rationally discuss whether eating fried chicken is a good idea, considering its health effects. Similarly, one can debate vigorously on whether Tiger Parenting is a sound educational philosophy. But the outcome of those debates does not affect the pernicious effects of stereotyping, because the evil core of stereotypes is never, and has never been, about the particular vehicle of stereotype. The evil core of stereotypes is, and has always been, the act of stereotyping, the mainstream society's willingness to indiscriminately assign stereotypes to individuals belonging to particular racial, ethnic, religious or cultural groups.

I can see the frustration of the proverbial second diner: "If only African Americans stopped eating fried chicken around white people, that stereotype will go away!" Similarly, I can see the frustration of some Asian Americans: "If only Amy Chua stopped talking about Tiger Parenting that makes us look like automatons, Asian American stereotypes will disappear!" But while understandable, this frustration is misguided in several ways.

First, without addressing the core evil of stereotypes, i.e. the act of stereotyping, stereotypes will never go away. Instead, one just replaces the other. Recall that the stereotypical image of a submissive Asian woman travels with the equally stereotypical image of a domineering Dragon Lady. Even if tomorrow, by some miracle, all African Americans were to find fried chicken unpalatable, all Hispanic Americans were to have perfectly legitimate American citizenship and all Asian Americans doctors were to became the most creative, free-wheeling artists in the world, the mainstream society that seeks to stereotype these ethnic groups will simply find some other vehicles of stereotype with which reduce blacks, Hispanics and Asians down to a caricature.

Second, a mind beholden to bias does not operate rationally; it distorts the reality around it to fit its preferred stereotypes. We constantly see that, for example, someone who is convinced that illegal immigrants are more crime-prone, highlights every crime committed by an illegal alien and filters out of his mind the statistical truth that illegal immigrants are in fact less likely than the native-born to commit crimes. A bigoted mind requires but one example to validate its bias. It is foolish to attack the example, when the root of the problem is the bigotry.

Third, as I alluded before, such frustration empowers the stereotype further. In the case of the two diners, consider which one has the greater primacy of his or her own life. The first diner will have what she wants for dinner. The second diner surrenders that choice, opting instead to let the stereotype dictate what he will have for dinner. Which one of the two is more freed from stereotypes? If we are fighting stereotypes so that we may be treated as an individual rather than a caricature, we cannot do so by delegating our individuality to the force of those stereotypes.

Nor can we do so by attacking our peers. The most distressing part of watching Asian Americans' Amy Chua-bashing was that it smacks of an attempt to establish themselves as "the cool ones with individuality" by throwing another prominent Asian American under the bus. It has been a constant refrain in Asian American intellectual history to seek the mainstream society's acceptance by becoming an outspoken critic of what is perceived as peculiarly Asian. Renounce the language, the food, the culture, and soon we can be full-fledged Americans like the ones we see on television--so the thinking goes. But it does not work that way. A house slave may feel closer to the white society than a field slave; to the slave owner, they are slaves all the same. Likewise, a bigoted mind does not spare an Asian American from stereotypes no matter how much that Asian American renounces Tiger Parenting and Amy Chua.

We cannot fight the prejudice against us by letting the prejudice set the course of our actions. We can only do so by claiming our full individuality, by living our lives in a way we see fit, with pride and no apologies. If you are critical of Tiger Parenting, go on and be critical. But know that Amy Chua is simply living her life with no apologies. If you want to combat stereotypes, you should too. For Amy Chua is not your enemy; the enemy is the mainstream society that expects you to be the same person as she.

Got a question or comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

22 comments:

  1. > We constantly see that, for example, someone who is convinced that illegal immigrants are more crime-prone, highlights every crime committed by an illegal alien and filters out of his mind the statistical truth that illegal immigrants are in fact less likely than the native-born to commit crimes. A bigoted mind requires but one example to validate its bias.

    From the link:

    > Q. Do the trends for immigrants hold true for illegal aliens in particular? Was Geraldo Rivera right about illegal aliens committing less crime?
    >
    > A. It’s hard to break out that precise figure, because of the uncertainty. First of all, we’re not even allowed, because there are certain restrictions placed on our research, to ask about someone’s immigration status.

    'Statistical truth' proving the 'bias' of 'bigoted minds', eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you also want to quote the next sentence that Dr. Sampson says, after the part you quoted? Because that's pretty relevant to the overall discussion.

      Delete
    2. The part where he admits that he simply does not and can not have the data which the article and you present him as having, but freely speculates on what might (or might not) be the case? Well, it's relevant, in some sense, I can't deny that...

      But personally, when I claim something is the *statistical truth* and any belief to the contrary is not merely wrong, but *proof of that person's shameful irrationality and biases*, I try to make sure the claim is based on actual data. And not good guesses. I think it's a good standard to hold oneself to.

      Delete
    3. That's not what Dr. Sampson says. He says that he can't calculate precise numbers from the limited data that he has been able to collect, but that the statistical trend (that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes) is apparent from what data he has been able to collect.

      Granted, without hard numbers it's pretty hard to accept or reject that 95% confidence interval, but even in cases where the numbers are under the threshold of statistical significance, looking at trends is still important. The point is that the data is _NOT_ consistent with the argument that "illegal immigrants are equally or more likely to commit crimes as other groups."

      Delete
    4. > That's not what Dr. Sampson says.

      That's exactly what he says. He *says* he does not have the data AAK claimed he had. Everything else is irrelevant besides the point.

      > The point is that the data is _NOT_ consistent with the argument that "illegal immigrants are equally or more likely to commit crimes as other groups."

      Sure it is. Here's a way in which it is consistent (and 95% intervals aren't really relevant here: it's typically not sampling error that's the problem with these claims, it's the design and inferences allowable at all): imagine that illegal immigrants are 10x more likely to commit crimes than a random citizen, are deported after committing a crime, and crimes are always convicted. You do a cross-sectional survey of immigrants, and you discover... illegal immigrants are incredibly moral law-abiding good folks compared to citizens, who apparently are the spawn of Satan. Boom, a subtle confound in your data just gave you the opposite of the truth. (This can also happen with a longitudinal design if you can't reach subjects in the followup and there's differential attrition, which there always is.) And you want to lecture me about a case where we don't even have confounded data? Give me a break!

      Delete
    5. > > That's not what Dr. Sampson says.

      > That's exactly what he says.

      I disagree. To quote the article, "the data, which show that in fact immigrants, illegal aliens, are disproportionately less likely to be involved in many acts of deviance, crime, drunk driving, any number of things that sort of imperil our well-being."

      >He *says* he does not have the data AAK claimed he had.

      He said he does not have a precise number. If illegal immigrants did in fact have a very high rate of violence crime, then one would have expected this to skew his data by showing a much higher overall level of violence crime for all immigrants. Since the overall level of crime for all immigrants is so low, it follows that either the proportion of illegal immigrants in the data to other types of immigrants is very low, or their crime rates must also be very low.

      But the former option appears to be safely ruled out: "If you think about it, the national trend [...] has also been highly correlated with the influx of illegals [...] Similarly, in Chicago, the neighborhoods we studied that were immigrant enclaves, they were also where you found illegal immigrants [...]"

      > Everything else is irrelevant besides the point.

      You contradict yourself.

      > Well, it's relevant, in some sense, I can't deny that...

      > > The point is that the data is _NOT_ consistent with the argument that "illegal immigrants are equally or more likely to commit crimes as other groups."

      > Sure it is. Here's a way in which it is consistent [..]: imagine that illegal immigrants are 10x more likely to commit crimes than a random citizen, are deported after committing a crime, and crimes are always convicted.

      OK. What of it?

      > You do a cross-sectional survey of immigrants, and you discover... illegal immigrants are incredibly moral law-abiding good folks compared to citizens, who apparently are the spawn of Satan.

      I don't see how this follows. Unless a person was deliberately ignoring the existence of the ones who were deported, the data should show the 10x rate.

      > Boom, a subtle confound in your data just gave you the opposite of the truth. (This can also happen with a longitudinal design if you can't reach subjects in the followup and there's differential attrition, which there always is.) And you want to lecture me about a case where we don't even have confounded data? Give me a break!

      I think enough data exists to draw valid conclusions. Even if all of the crime detected in this study was committed only by the illegal immigrants, with the other types of immigrants having a zero crime rate, it's still possible to calculate the highest possible crime rate for the illegal immigrants that's consistent with the data.

      > (and 95% intervals aren't really relevant here: it's typically not sampling error that's the problem with these claims, it's the design and inferences allowable at all)

      Agreed.

      Delete
    6. > To quote the article, "the data, which show that in fact immigrants, illegal aliens, are disproportionately less likely to be involved in many acts of deviance, crime, drunk driving, any number of things that sort of imperil our well-being."

      Which is fascinating of him to say, given that a few questions he admits he does not have data on 'illegal aliens' and I have already quoted that part. Liar or self-deluded? You decide.

      (Incidentally, I note that AAK has left the link and wording alone. Shameless.)

      > He said he does not have a precise number.

      'Precise number'? He doesn't have any numbers! "we’re not even allowed...to ask about someone’s immigration status."

      > then one would have expected this to skew his data by showing a much higher overall level of violence crime for all immigrants.

      No, one would not, because if one followed the issue, one would know that legal immigrants are generally a highly-selected group (those people functional and motivated enough to move to another country, learn another tongue, run the immigration gauntlet, etc) which tend to have higher incomes, higher IQs, higher levels of education etc, and be drawn from groups like Koreans (to be a bit topical), all of which predict much lower violent crime rates which can offset the illegal immigrants without even discussing issues like reporting bias or recidivism interacting with deportation. To discuss whether that's not enough, one would need data on illegal immigrants... oh wait.

      > Unless a person was deliberately ignoring the existence of the ones who were deported, the data should show the 10x rate.

      Because when you surveyed the people still in the country, you would only pick up natives (both those who had committed no crimes and many crimes) and illegal immigrants (who had committed no crimes and so had not been deported). Did I explain this poorly? I thought the model was simple enough anyone could understand it.

      > I think enough data exists to draw valid conclusions.

      "we’re not even allowed...to ask about someone’s immigration status."

      > Even if all of the crime detected in this study was committed only by the illegal immigrants, with the other types of immigrants having a zero crime rate, it's still possible to calculate the highest possible crime rate for the illegal immigrants that's consistent with the data.

      And it is...? And having come up with this very loose upper limit, your conclusion is...? I don't understand what meaning one could take from this upper bound.

      Delete
    7. > > To quote the article, "the data, which show that in fact immigrants, illegal aliens, are disproportionately less likely to be involved in many acts of deviance, crime, drunk driving, any number of things that sort of imperil our well-being."

      > Which is fascinating of him to say, given that a few questions he admits he does not have data on 'illegal aliens' and I have already quoted that part. Liar or self-deluded? You decide.

      He did not say that he lacked data. He only said he lacked precise numbers. He has enough data to see trends, and from that he can reasonably draw certain justified conclusions.

      > (Incidentally, I note that AAK has left the link and wording alone. Shameless.)

      Understandable, considering.

      > > He said he does not have a precise number.

      > 'Precise number'? He doesn't have any numbers! "we’re not even allowed...to ask about someone’s immigration status."

      He has data on immigrants. Some of these are legal. Others are undocumented. Perhaps he can't tell with certainty which is which. But he has collected data on both. Or are you suggesting that over a period of ten years that he has managed to avoid every single undocumented immigrant in the area?

      > > then one would have expected this to skew his data by showing a much higher overall level of violence crime for all immigrants.

      > No, one would not

      Yes, one would. It would skew the data. You can get a feel for just how big the skew would be by calculating the upper bound that I mention below, and then it's opposite (calculating the upper bound if undocumented aliens had a zero crime rate and the other types of aliens were responsible for the rest of the crime rate).

      > > Even if all of the crime detected in this study was committed only by the illegal immigrants, with the other types of immigrants having a zero crime rate, it's still possible to calculate the highest possible crime rate for the illegal immigrants that's consistent with the data.

      > And it is...? And having come up with this very loose upper limit, your conclusion is...? I don't understand what meaning one could take from this upper bound.

      Namely, if this upper bound is still very low (e.g suggesting a 1/10th crime rate compared to a citizen), then it necessarily follows from this data that undocumented aliens must have a lower crime rate than citizens.

      > > Unless a person was deliberately ignoring the existence of the ones who were deported, the data should show the 10x rate.

      > Because when you surveyed the people still in the country, you would only pick up natives (both those who had committed no crimes and many crimes) and illegal immigrants (who had committed no crimes and so had not been deported). Did I explain this poorly? I thought the model was simple enough anyone could understand it.

      Yes, you did explain poorly. Why would this survey fail to pick up crime from undocumented aliens, as reported by the victims on the survey, for example?

      Also, why wouldn't this survey pick up legal immigrants at all? Why only citizens (the natives?) and undocumented aliens?

      Delete
    8. > > I think enough data exists to draw valid conclusions.

      > "we’re not even allowed...to ask about someone’s immigration status."

      While I certainly agree that being able to ask that would help a lot in getting more accurate data, I disagree that the lack of this information means we lack enough data to draw the specific conclusion that AAK is endorsing.

      Quick example:

      A paper shows citizen violent crime rate is 10%. Same paper shows that immigrant crime rate is 1%, but can't break it down into legal and undocumented categories, though it does note that the estimated proportion is 50% - that is half are undocumented and half are documented.

      Assuming all the crime comes from the undocumented aliens, their crime rate is 2%.

      So, the data can't give us a precise number on the crime rate for undocumented aliens, but we can see the trend that this crime rate is still lower than the citizen crime rate.

      Delete
    9. > He has enough data to see trends, and from that he can reasonably draw certain justified conclusions.

      Ah yes, trends... Yes, many people like to see trends. It's a very popular trend to discover trends supporting your own views. But, 'in God we trust; all others bring data'. Actual data. Not trends.

      > Understandable, considering.

      I think it might be helpful here if you were more precise about to what extent you agree with the Korean. Do you agree with the Korean that the evidence in the link the Korean provided is *so* convincing, *so* powerful and overwhelming, that it is a "statistical truth", which any disagreement with proves nothing less than that a person is a bigot who is engaged in biased partisan reasoning?

      Or do you think something more reasonable and similar to me - that the citation, while interesting and suggestive, are nevertheless weak, could be easily overturned by data, and in no way as conclusive or supportive of the claims the Korean puts on it?

      > He has data on immigrants. Some of these are legal. Others are undocumented. Perhaps he can't tell with certainty which is which. But he has collected data on both. Or are you suggesting that over a period of ten years that he has managed to avoid every single undocumented immigrant in the area?

      I have data on cancer patients which were given and not given a new drug. Of course, I don't know who was given the treatment and who wasn't, but nevertheless! I have collected data on both! Clearly the drug works. Only an evil bigot could deny this statistical truth.

      > You can get a feel for just how big the skew would be by calculating the upper bound that I mention below, and then it's opposite (calculating the upper bound if undocumented aliens had a zero crime rate and the other types of aliens were responsible for the rest of the crime rate)...Namely, if this upper bound is still very low (e.g suggesting a 1/10th crime rate compared to a citizen), then it necessarily follows from this data that undocumented aliens must have a lower crime rate than citizens.

      And the upper bound is...? Does it support the useful inferences you want it to? Or are you merely idly speculating about what might or might not be the case?

      > Yes, you did explain poorly. Why would this survey fail to pick up crime from undocumented aliens, as reported by the victims on the survey, for example?

      That's a different kind of survey than my hypothetical, but you can still get the same results because of recidivism - most violent crimes are committed by a very small number of people who engage in multiple crimes over time, so even if there's an initial rash of crime by immigrants in our model, the deportation step then drives future rates very low compared to the natives (who get released from prison and commit further cirmes).

      > Also, why wouldn't this survey pick up legal immigrants at all? Why only citizens (the natives?) and undocumented aliens?

      You can run it both ways, if you want, it's not important. The point is the same: you can get low apparent crime rates when there's selection on your data.

      > Assuming all the crime comes from the undocumented aliens, their crime rate is 2%. So, the data can't give us a precise number on the crime rate for undocumented aliens, but we can see the trend that this crime rate is still lower than the citizen crime rate.

      Yes, given extremely powerful example numbers, you can make the loose upper bound so low that it is actually meaningful, but you haven't shown that this reflects reality.

      Delete
    10. > > He has enough data to see trends, and from that he can reasonably draw certain justified conclusions.

      > Ah yes, trends... Yes, many people like to see trends. It's a very popular trend to discover trends supporting your own views. But, 'in God we trust; all others bring data'. Actual data. Not trends.

      What I'm saying is that he may have enough data to be able to conclude that undocumented alien crime rates are low despite the extreme uncertainly caused by the restrictions placed on him (namely, not being able to ask who is undocumented).

      > > Understandable, considering.

      > I think it might be helpful here if you were more precise about to what extent you agree with the Korean. Do you agree with the Korean that the evidence in the link the Korean provided is *so* convincing, *so* powerful and overwhelming, that it is a "statistical truth", which any disagreement with proves nothing less than that a person is a bigot who is engaged in biased partisan reasoning?

      No, I do not agree with that. I think "statistical truth" is a bit too strong if one relies only on this one salon article alone. Also, someone who disagrees is not necessarily a bigot - they may simply have independently collected data that points to a different conclusion.

      > Or do you think something more reasonable and similar to me - that the citation, while interesting and suggestive, are nevertheless weak, could be easily overturned by data, and in no way as conclusive or supportive of the claims the Korean puts on it?

      I don't agree with this either - and I"m not sure TK would. TK never said that this was conclusive or immune from being overturned by new data, for example.

      In principle, I support getting new and more data. I think the article is strong (not weak) and supports TK's claim, but I certainly acknowledge that in principle it could be overturned by new data. Also, I understand that my use of "strong" is inherently subjective - two people can look at the same thing and agree on everything else, but yet still rate it differently.

      > any disagreement with proves nothing less than that a person is a bigot who is engaged in biased partisan reasoning?
      > Only an evil bigot could deny this statistical truth.

      Interesting. What is your position? Do you think that undocumented aliens are less likely to commit crime, but that the citation doesn't really support that and is a poor choice? Do you support the opposite view? Or do you think that the jury's still out and more data is required before a conclusion can be made?

      > > He has data on immigrants. Some of these are legal. Others are undocumented. Perhaps he can't tell with certainty which is which. But he has collected data on both. Or are you suggesting that over a period of ten years that he has managed to avoid every single undocumented immigrant in the area?

      > I have data on cancer patients which were given and not given a new drug. Of course, I don't know who was given the treatment and who wasn't, but nevertheless! I have collected data on both! Clearly the drug works.

      Before reaching the same conclusion, I'd have to see how the data was collected, what the numbers were, and what kind of record keeping was in place. For starters.

      In fact, however, this is a very common scenario. It's also known as a double-blind study.

      Delete
    11. > > You can get a feel for just how big the skew would be by calculating the upper bound that I mention below, and then it's opposite (calculating the upper bound if undocumented aliens had a zero crime rate and the other types of aliens were responsible for the rest of the crime rate)...Namely, if this upper bound is still very low (e.g suggesting a 1/10th crime rate compared to a citizen), then it necessarily follows from this data that undocumented aliens must have a lower crime rate than citizens.

      > And the upper bound is...? Does it support the useful inferences you want it to? Or are you merely idly speculating about what might or might not be the case?

      > > Assuming all the crime comes from the undocumented aliens, their crime rate is 2%. So, the data can't give us a precise number on the crime rate for undocumented aliens, but we can see the trend that this crime rate is still lower than the citizen crime rate.

      > Yes, given extremely powerful example numbers, you can make the loose upper bound so low that it is actually meaningful, but you haven't shown that this reflects reality.

      Conceded. I haven't been able to find the actual paper and the salon article doesn't give out the hard numbers, so I can't say that this reflects reality. I don't even know what the citizen crime rate is. I'm instead arguing from appeal to authority and hoping that Dr. Sampson has run the numbers in this way and found that they support this conclusion before making his statements on data and trends.

      Of course, he's not the only one stating this. Elsewhere, we see claims that undocumented aliens have a lower crime rate as well. Including a study that specifically looks at undocumented aliens.

      http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/06/public-study-illegal-immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-americans/
      https://asunews.asu.edu/node/24489

      > > Yes, you did explain poorly. Why would this survey fail to pick up crime from undocumented aliens, as reported by the victims on the survey, for example?

      > That's a different kind of survey than my hypothetical, but you can still get the same results because of recidivism - most violent crimes are committed by a very small number of people who engage in multiple crimes over time, so even if there's an initial rash of crime by immigrants in our model, the deportation step then drives future rates very low compared to the natives (who get released from prison and commit further cirmes).

      Good point. Conceded.

      > > Also, why wouldn't this survey pick up legal immigrants at all? Why only citizens (the natives?) and undocumented aliens?

      > You can run it both ways, if you want, it's not important. The point is the same: you can get low apparent crime rates when there's selection on your data.

      Agreed.

      Delete
  2. Even as a critic of universal Tiger Parenting, I certainly have to agree with you here, TK.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am shocked that Koreans are not on the list of 8 superior immigrant cultures. Superiority, insecurity, impulse control could be Korea's national motto.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How interesting so is this....http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/01/programmer_privilege_as_an_asian_male_computer_science_major_everyone_gave.2.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for adding my name to this list.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Does Amy Chua deserves bashing? Certainly. I would even add "and some whipping too". Her Jewish mother-in-law is definitely too soft on her. She should have had a Korean one, then she would be straightened out right away.
    If you actually watch Amy Chua's daughter's graduation speech, you will notice right away what a pathetic excuse for a human being this girl is. Brainless yet with a big mouth, just like her mom. Tiger Parenting? Epic fail.

    I also want to comment on the fact that "the Korean" does not have kids on his own (as we know of) and has no right to give any advice on parenting styles or anything else of that sort. I also think he is not qualified in this field since he DOES NOT have a degree in early childhood education or child psychology. Of course, I could be wrong and he could be secretly taking education courses concurrently with trying to get his law degree.

    Anyway, just to conclude: it is your blog and you can write whatever the hell you want. However, you cannot claim that you actually KNOW what is right and what is wrong when it comes to parenting. You are not a researcher and not an educator. Neither is Amy Chua.

    If any hobo on the street will deem himself important and knowledgeable on the subject matter, does it really make him so?

    Enough with submitting useless opinions unsupported by science. Just going to an Ivy League school and getting a degree in anything does not make you a better human being. You can still be a shitty person, a bully (by the way, Korean culture is a bullying culture) and say things that are not true.

    http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2163555-1,00.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's interesting to see you outraged then turn around and then talk shit on someone else's daughter. Makes me wonder why anyone should listen to your opinions if you're so quick to pass judgement.

      >> "I also want to comment on the fact that "the Korean" does not have kids on his own (as we know of) and has no right to give any advice on parenting styles or anything else of that sort. I also think he is not qualified in this field since he DOES NOT have a degree in early childhood education or child psychology."

      Why do people think that you need to spawn children to realize certain facts about LIFE? Offering structural and intentional hardships within family expectations is good practice for children when they venture out into the world that will not coddle to individual needs. No, an Ivy League education and a degree doesn't make you a "better human being". It just makes you better equipped to deal with and sustain a life above living paycheck to paycheck. And what parent doesn't want that? No one *needs* to have a child to see this. Life is hard and if you prep with bigger challenges, there's a higher likelihood of succeeding.

      As for your comments about shitty people, bullies and liars, that's more on individual development and values than whether one goes to an Ivy League or not. Just as you can be a shitty bullying liar and profess to be good [insert adjective] person. That's the great thing about individuality. Just because you lament bullying while trying to assign your limited anecdotal experiences as reasons to categorize and stereotype others, we all have the means to rise above that sort of short-sighted BS and still do what we need to do to succeed in life, regardless of many "useless opinions unsupported by science."

      TK - long time reader. Love your thought-provoking posts!

      Delete
    2. Yet another load of scientifically unsupported crap. Who needs it? Apparently, some people do.

      Some people believe that 2 + 2 equals 5. That's what we call an opinion.

      And no, an Ivy League education and a degree is not a guarantee that you are better equipped to deal with a sustain a life above living paycheck to paycheck. And it does not take a degree to figure this one out.

      Delete
    3. You Do Realize That You Are Affirming TK Post, Right?

      2+2= 5? Where Did That Come From?

      Delete
    4. And your point? As far as I can infer, you are threatened by Amy Chua and TK.

      Btw, there is more than one way to raise your kids. We all agree on that.

      See Oprah and Bill Gates :)

      Delete
  7. Hi TK,

    I'm a big fan of yours.

    Thank you for articulating what is so wrong with the Amy Chua bashing. I admire her because she has the courage of her convictions, which have been grossly vilified. Plus, she's a target for spite, jealousy and envy directed towards her success, intelligence, really good kids, marriage and beauty. In street parlance, she "has it all", thus "haters are going to hate".

    The Triple Threat as a co-op: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/what-drives-success.html

    The Triple Threat was published as a NYTimes Co-op. It's very good. Most blog posts were written pre-release of the Triple Threat without ever reading the offending book. Of course they all jump on the attack bandwagon. Not one post actually discusses the content of Triple Threat without mudslinging. Rush to judgement, huh?


    ReplyDelete

To prevent spam comments, comments left on posts older than 60 days is subject to moderation and will not appear immediately.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...