Tiger Mom, and the dark side and prejudices of extreme conformity

With tiger Mom's most recent, in your face, we are better than you book, she has a point that her methods do succeed in moderate financial success in the first world countries, but in the long term, multi-generation, pursuit of success through hyper conformity and loyalty to the institutional state at all cost, will this lifestyle, at best, will only lead to the destruction of everything that has made the U.S. successful?

Tiger Mom has out her new book, and she is claiming victory, but over what is the question.

shine.yahoo.com...

But the reality, notes the book, co-written by Chua's husband and fellow Yale professor Jed Rubenfeld, is that "uncomfortable as it may be to talk about," some "religious, ethnic, and national-origin groups are starkly more successful than others." Those groups, according to the authors, are Mormons, Cuban exiles, Nigerian Americans, Indian Americans, Chinese Americans, American Jews, Iranian Americans and Lebanese Americans. And the reasons they excel, the book declares, is because of a basic "triple package" formula: a superiority complex, insecurity, and impulse control.

Lets look at that triple package.

a basic "triple package" formula: a superiority complex, insecurity, and impulse control.

Not exactly my idea of morality. Matched with these other mental states, "impulse control" is probably better interpreted as control freak.

I don't see how these three traits can be attributed to contributing to society. Just the opposite, these are very negative personal traits, predatory, opportunistic, and recessive.

I know people who raise their children in this manner, and I know those children, and the adults raised in this manner. Overall, they are decent people, but they are only concerned with their own success. Yes, this produces people who succeed within institutional walls, but beyond those narrow confines, they are very undeveloped people, typically, emotionally underdeveloped, anti-social, and living with a deep level of resentment against those people who were actually allowed to enjoy their childhoods.

I have worked in Silicon Valley for the last thirty years, and watched as this valley has changed. Back in the day, corporate hierarchy in the tech start ups was not top down, but very egalitarian. A college degree wasn't nearly as important as demonstrating ability.

Now days, all the start up have been bought by ancient giant corporate entities, management structure is very hierarchical, a college degree is critical, and innovation is essentially static. Current tech is not progressing at this time, but regressing.

It takes more than an education, it takes real world experience, and in the current hyper-conformity requirements of higher education, real world experience has been eliminated from the requirements.

The reason for all the companies requiring a college degree is because of the government's insane idea to make sure every kid can "afford" to go to college. I put afford in quotes since they aren't really affording it, just paying for it through credit that they probably won't be able to repay (ever). With all these kids getting degrees, it severely devalues them. Basically it allows a corporation to ask a potential employee, "Well all these other people have degrees. You with your experience, why don't you have a degree?" It's absurd, because any rational person knows that most jobs are learned through real world experience.

Part of me wonders how soon the day is coming when corporations will start trolling through high schools to pick our their prospective future talents and basically signing contracts with them forming a modern apprentice structure. Essentially, we'll educate/train you, but you belong to us for a period not to exceed x years on these terms ...

But I digress ...

You can dislike what is said all you want, but it cannot be denied that certain ethnic/cultural groups have tended to succeed wherever they go. I would have added Germans to this. They have also tended to do pretty well for themselves as a group. However, if you look around the world, you will tend to see the same cultural groups coming to the top and succeeding again and again, even in the face of persecution.

Obviously, there is something they are doing right, and yes, Jews and some Asian cultures are in that mix. I would agree that a feeling of belief in their culture is part of it. If they didn't believe in their culture, they would have no reason to have adhered to it and preserved it for as long as they have. Look at Jews especially who have been exiles in the world for so long and yet persist.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


And right now there is a shortage of skilled trades, and it is only going to get worse.

IMO, there has been a steady class war against the skilled trades. All these social progressive programs have worked against the skilled trades.

Never mind the social need for plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc.

Everyone should receive a college degree.

This , according to Obama, is the norm.


Well, guess what, a college degree is not required by such fields.



And in the end, we are screwed.

reply to post by zeroBelief


No, it's not, but if you don't get that degree, how can you have any government debt? And if you don't have any government debt, how can they get more money out of you that your taxes?

reply to post by ketsuko


I agree, as stated in the op, some groups do succeed with this formula, described by Tiger Mom, but what I question, is this good for society? Are they contributors, or parasites?

Jews have succeeded in Northwestern European cultures, but not outside of those cultures. They have maintained their own cultural identity, within the host culture of the nations where they have settled. Have those gains helped to propel the host cultures forward, or taken away from the host cultures? If you look at the history, there is a mix bag of answers to this question.

In the pursuit of multiculturalism, is success in this manner suggested by Tiger Mom good for humanity?

As one who has a couple years Community College at this point, and about to University stage? My personal advice is to avoid college until you've chosen a path in life where the degree is a necessary part of it. It really bothers me a little to see the sheer number of kids (18-20) who attend long enough to get screwed up in serious federal student loan debt, but drop out or cash out with the aid money in short term thinking ....for a debt very few ways exist to ever get out of, short of death. (and they get your estate too!)

I'll also share a real big (shhhhh) secret here... I've had more than one class now and one was a 200 level, where I literally had more productive learning from course recommended and self-researched youtubes than anything inside the classroom I paid to attend. No kidding...and youtube is as golden in some directions as it is worthless in others.

One can also get a true, meaningful education without paying a penny from places like Coursera, if the education itself is the point.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Best schools I have ever attended, hands down, were in the military.

Followed by what I would call a military apprenticeship program, where success depends almost entirely on putting knowledge acquired in school to real accomplishment.

What I question, is whether these overachievers, who give up their childhoods for academic success, are actually contributing to the world, or taking more away than they contribute through overly ambitious pursuit of security and materialistic success.

In a world where we produce more than we need, where large numbers of people are locked out the economy, simply because they are not needed i the production process, it doesn't make sense that we are working harder than ever, and getting less back for our efforts than the generation that preceded us.

I haven't read her book but it seems true that some religions seem to have more prosperous people within them. I've also noticed some negative qualities with "some" with some of the people within these groups (not generalizing), I personally couldn't integrate into my way of walking through the world. That's in every group though so if whatever they are doing makes them more successful and happier for their 70-80 years I say more power to them. Why not if it works for them but it doesn't mean it will fit for everyone.

My son wants to be a welder. I'm all for it. If he does what he's passionate about he won't work a day in his life, and will be as rich as those who feel a college degree is needed to gain that. I only hope there is a need for this when his time comes.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yessir. What you said in that post is the truth. I got the best out of college because I didn't start attending until I was 26 (also paid for with the GI Bill, score no student debt!) and had a clear idea what I wanted to major in (Computer Science, NOT some worthless Liberal Arts degree). Not to mention, I also ran into a few courses even going up the 400 level, that you were better off doing your own independent learning rather then listen to the professor or the textbook they recommend. I have many gripes about how colleges "educate" their students, but that isn't the intent of the thread I believe so I'll leave them for another time.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I'd like to say, there is a clear difference between an achiever, and an overachiever.

Doing your best to make something good happen, is different than doing your best to get ahead, no matter what the consequences to other maybe.

reply to post by poet1b

Dear poet1b,

I admit it. I'm a little confused by your basic question which, as I understand it, is:

What I question, . . . are [they] actually contributing to the world, or taking more away than they contribute through overly ambitious pursuit of security and materialistic success.

Isn't materialistic success achieved by giving the world, or a portion of it, what the world is willing to pay for? If the world is perfectly willing to give someone a million dollars a year for programming 16 hours a day, that must be because the world thinks it is benefiting by the deal. And, just as obviously, the person involved must think it is worth programming 16 hours a day in order to get a million dollars a year.

The world believes that the person is contributing at least a million dollars worth of work, so how can the world be on the short end of the deal? If the world thought it was a bad deal, they wouldn't make it.

But, perhaps your point was something else, and I'd be happy to discuss it.

With respect,
Charles1952

Dianec
I haven't read her book but it seems true that some religions seem to have more prosperous people within them. I've also noticed some negative qualities with "some" with some of the people within these groups (not generalizing), I personally couldn't integrate into my way of walking through the world. That's in every group though so if whatever they are doing makes them more successful and happier for their 70-80 years I say more power to them. Why not if it works for them but it doesn't mean it will fit for everyone.

My son wants to be a welder. I'm all for it. If he does what he's passionate about he won't work a day in his life, and will be as rich as those who feel a college degree is needed to gain that. I only hope there is a need for this when his time comes.

My cousin was an under\\$water welder and he was bringing home $5000 a week.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I had a quite a few basic level courses where I pulled high B to A grades in the lecture section just by really reading the text and checking up on review lectures to make sure I was picking up the right relevant info. Most of what you needed was in the text and the lectures were mainly just reviews of the material. I figured pretty quick that if I understood it once, I didn't need it again, and once or twice, I had lecturers who just plain confused me when the text presented it far more clearly the first time around.

reply to post by poet1b


I suppose you could argue in a sense that I was an overachiever just like my entire high school graduating class. It was our defining characteristic. Why is that bad. I did it because things interested me, and I enjoyed it.

Why such disdain for people who want to do well at things, really well at them?

You seem to think that it's a bad thing, and they only want to do it because they are overly greedy.

I'll tell you that I wanted to be the best I could be because I wanted to see how far I could go and how good I could get. It wasn't out of any desire to stomp all over other people's dreams. Is it wrong that turned out to be the top female athlete in my state my senior year? Was that too ruthless of me?

And her children will probably get divorced 3 times because they have no social skills whatsoever.

While Tiger mom may be right in that some cultures are much more "successful" depending on how you describe success, because their children hit the books for 16 hours a day. But those cultures also have much higher suicide rates.

But for all her education and success, she has missed the basic societal structure in the US, that people become successful, and are good at what they do, because they want too be.

This is how American culture has operated since the settlers first stepped foot on land, you go for what you want.

While elementary education standards do lag behind most of the world, out of the top 20 universities in the world, 17 are held by the US. Because the people who WANT to get there, get there themselves.

Americans put a lot of stock in someone who chose their path, not forced into it. Tiger woods may have been one of the best golfers, but his social life is in flames because he has the emotional intelligence of a toddler, because he had tiger parents.

Those who do get into the top universities, did it on their own, because they wanted too, AND THAT, is success. Not because someone beat it into them. Not because they were forced too. And Americans put a lot of emphasis on that. If you were "groomed" for the job, we don't consider it a success story.

Just look at the story of Ben Carson.

People here achieve great things not because they are forced too, but because they wanted too. THAT is success.

zeroBelief
Never mind the social need for plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc.

Everyone should receive a college degree.

This , according to Obama, is the norm.


Well, guess what, a college degree is not required by such fields.



And in the end, we are screwed.

One of my math teachers in high school got national teacher of the year, for developing a new style of learning for kids that was very success, and I can attest it did work.

But he said to us one day: I won this award, I have a masters in education, but my plumber makes 3 times what I do. Don't ever look down on anybody.

very grounded guy.

reply to post by charles1952


Um, maybe youwould be less confused if you read the Op.

Do you see "a superiority complex, insecurity, and impulse control as virtues that lead to a better society?

Isn't materialistic success achieved by giving the world, or a portion of it, what the world is willing to pay for?

Materialistic success is also achieved by lying cheating and stealing. Unfortunately, for some people, crime does pay. There are also many other roads to materialistic success that doesn't involve giving more to the world than taking.

In an idealistic world, we would all get back what we have put into society, but that is not how things work.