by Rod Edwards on January 10, 2011
What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you’re good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences. This often requires fortitude on the part of the parents because the child will resist; things are always hardest at the beginning, which is where Western parents tend to give up. But if done properly, the Chinese strategy produces a virtuous circle. Tenacious practice, practice, practice is crucial for excellence; rote repetition is underrated in America. Once a child starts to excel at something—whether it’s math, piano, pitching or ballet—he or she gets praise, admiration and satisfaction.
via Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior – WSJ.com.
I have to imagine (as a non-parent) that there other factors that contribute to a child’s “success.” The definition of “success” for example, or the peer groups that they are exposed to. Nonetheless, an interesting perspective on a key psychological difference between two societies.
by Rod Edwards on January 4, 2011
Here’s a letter to the Editor of the Calgary herald that suggests that government should just ban cigarettes already:
I very am confused by the mixed message our government is sending. The message is that they don’t really want us to smoke because smoking is bad for us, hence the warning labels, yet they will allow the sale of this killer product. Let me use an analogy to show the absurdity of how this is being handled. A car seat is proven to be dangerous and could kill one in 1,000 babies placed in it. Would the government allow the sale of this car seat as long as there is a big warning label slapped on it? Of course not. They would pull this product from the market and ban its sale. [Calgary Herald]
The government isn’t really sending mixed messages. What they’re saying, with the heavy taxation of cigarettes and the warning labels, is that informed [warning labels] consenting adults can decide for themselves what level of risk they want to take on, provided that they’re willing to fund their future care [taxes]. Government’s role here is to enforce the “informed” part and plan for the funding part [no comment on how well that's being done in each province]. Yes, I know that this doesn’t really hold, as cigarette taxes don’t go directly to provisioning future health care for lung cancer sufferers, but the spirit of the tax is “you choose, you pay” – i.e.: making externalities concrete.
In the case of a car seat, a baby is incapable of being informed about much or consenting to anything, and the government is making a judgment on the risks (death of a child) vs. the cost (erosion of freedom of the parents). What if that carseat were allowed to be sold, but 3/4′s of its box had to be covered in a graphic image of a car accident, and a message to the effect that this car seat was more likely to cause death?
