人都有惡的一麵，Bullying就是孩子惡性的發作。作惡者都嗅覺視覺靈敏，專找落單和軟弱的那一個下口，就像趟入斑馬群的獅子那樣，所以孤立無援的孩子最容易成為bullies作惡的對象。也正好是這樣的孩子受傷害最深，因為他們孤立、軟弱。教育資源網站bullyingproject.com 上說： “…limited popularity and social networks can be a precursor for victimization in an adolescent social setting. Limited support from peers and adults could show a child that bullying is not only right, but also admirable. The adolescents who are bullied feel as though the whole world is against them.”
我覺得孔子的話抓住了看起來錯綜複雜的人際關係的本質。如果能在孩子身上培養出兩個素質：信（包含了謹）和愛（包含了孝、弟、仁），剩下的就都是技術細節了。這正好也是Scott Peck 在其名著The Road Less Traveled 中說到的人靈性成長的兩個方麵：discipline （信）和love（愛）。
From “Amy Chua is a Wimp”(by David Brooks):
…I have the opposite problem with Chua. I believe she’s coddling her children. She’s protecting them from the most intellectually demanding activities because she doesn’t understand what’s cognitively difficult and what isn’t.
Practicing a piece of music for four hours requires focused attention, but it is nowhere near as cognitively demanding as a sleepover with 14-year-old girls. Managing status rivalries, negotiating group dynamics, understanding social norms, navigating the distinction between self and group — these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense tutoring session or a class at Yale.
Yet mastering these arduous skills is at the very essence of achievement. Most people work in groups… Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon have found that groups have a high collective intelligence when members of a group are good at reading each others’ emotions — when they take turns speaking, when the inputs from each member are managed fluidly, when they detect each others’ inclinations and strengths.
Participating in a well-functioning group is really hard. It requires the ability to trust people outside your kinship circle, read intonations and moods, understand how the psychological pieces each person brings to the room can and cannot fit together.
This skill set is not taught formally, but it is imparted through arduous experiences. These are exactly the kinds of difficult experiences Chua shelters her children from by making them rush home to hit the homework table.
Chua would do better to see the classroom as a cognitive break from the truly arduous tests of childhood. Where do they learn how to manage people? Where do they learn to construct and manipulate metaphors? Where do they learn to perceive details of a scene the way a hunter reads a landscape? Where do they learn how to detect their own shortcomings? Where do they learn how to put themselves in others’ minds and anticipate others’ reactions?
These and a million other skills are imparted by the informal maturity process and are not developed if formal learning monopolizes a child’s time.
So I’m not against the way Chua pushes her daughters. And I loved her book as a courageous and thought-provoking read. It’s also more supple than her critics let on. I just wish she wasn’t so soft and indulgent. I wish she recognized that in some important ways the school cafeteria is more intellectually demanding than the library. And I hope her daughters grow up to write their own books, and maybe learn the skills to better anticipate how theirs will be received.
胡渙 發表評論於
回複 '7grizzly' 的評論 : got it. thanks!
Of course "original thinking" is a tall order. It is only possessed by a very small fraction in any society ("pattern setters" in William James' language).
7grizzly 發表評論於
回複 '胡渙' 的評論 :
> I guess good speakers are all good metaphor makers?
Sure, Jesus came to mind. Churchil was a master of twisting something well-known to impress when he said of someone ``a sheep in sheep's clothing'' and another ``has a lust for peace.''
> did not understand the first sentence. do not completely agree with the second one
As far as I can understand,``early lessons'' means street-smartness, people skill, etc., since math, music, and design involve almost nothing that exercises that part of the brain.
As for the second sentence, I think the author meant good verbal skills do not replace original thinking.
胡渙 發表評論於
回複 '7grizzly' 的評論 :
> construct and manipulate metaphors
I missed this last time reading the same Brooks's article. Interesting. So this is a recognized art in the West? Very interesting.
-- I guess good speakers are all good metaphor makers?
In addition, what Brooks said reminds me of a quote of WSJ from ``The Millionaire Mind''
``Children who are better at mathematics, design, or music than reading and writing might tune out early lessons ... Children whose verbal skills earn them diplomas from prestigious schools sometimes turn into adults who speak beautifully but has nothing to say.''
-- did not understand the first sentence. do not completely agree with the second one: if something is spoken beautifully then there must be something in there. Of course this "something" might not be what the audience wants to hear.
7grizzly 發表評論於
> construct and manipulate metaphors
I missed this last time reading the same Brooks's article. Interesting. So this is a recognized art in the West? Very interesting.
In addition, what Brooks said reminds me of a quote of WSJ from ``The Millionaire Mind''
``Children who are better at mathematics, design, or music than reading and writing might tune out early lessons ... Children whose verbal skills earn them diplomas from prestigious schools sometimes turn into adults who speak beautifully but has nothing to say.''
這一套理論適合君子國,也適合教孩子們如何避免紛爭.但是如果你不招惹人,偏偏別人欺負你,在現今日益墮落的世界這一套理論行不通,別說小學生,就是PhD program, Postdoc,受到學霸們隱形bully的大有人在,很多人permanent head damaged and depressed.隻有fight back才有出路.樹挪死人挪活,美國最大的好處就是可以換學校, 換工作, 換老板, 換社交圈,換名字,搬家.我鼓勵我的孩子,隻要人冒犯你,bully你,你告訴我, 我幫你straight up.
Show your support, and tell kids what we can do to avoid such bully, if by any ways we can not avoid, just fight back. The biggest consequence is we move and change school.
人都有惡的一麵，Bullying就是孩子惡性的發作。作惡者都嗅覺視覺靈敏，專找落單和軟弱的那一個下口，就像趟入斑馬群的獅子那樣，所以孤立無援的孩子最容易成為bullies作惡的對象。也正好是這樣的孩子受傷害最深，因為他們孤立、軟弱。教育資源網站bullyingproject.com 上說： “…limited popularity and social networks can be a precursor for victimization in an adolescent social setting. Limited support from peers and adults could show a child that bullying is not only right, but also admirable. The adolescents who are bullied feel as though the whole world is against them.”
我覺得孔子的話抓住了看起來錯綜複雜的人際關係的本質。如果能在孩子身上培養出兩個素質：信（包含了謹）和愛（包含了孝、弟、仁），剩下的就都是技術細節了。這正好也是Scott Peck 在其名著The Road Less Traveled 中說到的人靈性成長的兩個方麵：discipline （信）和love（愛）。
From “Amy Chua is a Wimp”(by David Brooks):
…I have the opposite problem with Chua. I believe she’s coddling her children. She’s protecting them from the most intellectually demanding activities because she doesn’t understand what’s cognitively difficult and what isn’t.
Practicing a piece of music for four hours requires focused attention, but it is nowhere near as cognitively demanding as a sleepover with 14-year-old girls. Managing status rivalries, negotiating group dynamics, understanding social norms, navigating the distinction between self and group — these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense tutoring session or a class at Yale.
Yet mastering these arduous skills is at the very essence of achievement. Most people work in groups… Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon have found that groups have a high collective intelligence when members of a group are good at reading each others’ emotions — when they take turns speaking, when the inputs from each member are managed fluidly, when they detect each others’ inclinations and strengths.
Participating in a well-functioning group is really hard. It requires the ability to trust people outside your kinship circle, read intonations and moods, understand how the psychological pieces each person brings to the room can and cannot fit together.
This skill set is not taught formally, but it is imparted through arduous experiences. These are exactly the kinds of difficult experiences Chua shelters her children from by making them rush home to hit the homework table.
Chua would do better to see the classroom as a cognitive break from the truly arduous tests of childhood. Where do they learn how to manage people? Where do they learn to construct and manipulate metaphors? Where do they learn to perceive details of a scene the way a hunter reads a landscape? Where do they learn how to detect their own shortcomings? Where do they learn how to put themselves in others’ minds and anticipate others’ reactions?
These and a million other skills are imparted by the informal maturity process and are not developed if formal learning monopolizes a child’s time.
So I’m not against the way Chua pushes her daughters. And I loved her book as a courageous and thought-provoking read. It’s also more supple than her critics let on. I just wish she wasn’t so soft and indulgent. I wish she recognized that in some important ways the school cafeteria is more intellectually demanding than the library. And I hope her daughters grow up to write their own books, and maybe learn the skills to better anticipate how theirs will be received.
