胡渙
愛是永不止息
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.”
所以對付bullying， 除了在學校裏到處貼標語和展開群眾運動，還有更根本的辦法，那就是改進孩子的人際技巧。當然，根本性的辦法都要下長時間的工夫才有效果，不能臨時當創可貼來用。孔夫子說：人無遠慮，必有近憂。用到這裏可以解釋成：如果不花長期工夫培養孩子的人際技巧，孩子就可能會遇到沒法用創可貼解決的問題，比如bullying。
況且，Bullying 隻是孩子之間關係的極端情形。即使孩子沒有被bully，也不說明他（她）與別的孩子之間的關係就完全健康。
孩子之間的社交不是件簡單的事，因為孩子沒有大人那麽多的客氣和忍讓。孩子的心理也沒有成熟到能獨自抗衡群體壓力 (peer pressure) 的程度。說得不好聽點，孩子的世界是很殘酷的。這可能也是為什麽有些家長怕把孩子放到這熱火爐裏去曆練。《紐約時報》專欄作家David Brooks寫的“虎媽讀後感”就說學校的餐廳是比圖書館更挑戰孩子智力的地方。文後摘出這篇文章中幾段精彩的話。加下劃線處是作者提到的人際技巧的一些方麵。
移民的孩子還有另外一個挑戰：他們的祖輩從大洋那頭空運過來的價值觀跟他們大洋這頭土生土長的朋友同學的價值觀有點水火不容。這從Brooks的文章裏可以嗅出。我觀察這兩種不同價值觀的一個結果是：美國的社會結構是基於人與人之間的一種基本信任，而中國的社會結構隻能由一方打壓另一方的威權來維係。在兩種價值觀的夾縫中長大的孩子是很辛苦的。虎媽的女兒們就生存在這夾縫裏，盡管虎媽的價值觀已經空運過來太久，開始有少許變味了。
其實把人際技巧叫作技巧是看輕它了。技巧聽起來像是雕蟲小技，人際技巧聽起來像是玩弄一些兩麵三刀八麵玲瓏的花招，但是人際關係是個更基本的概念。思想家克裏希那穆提的觀察是人與別人的關係就是人的生活的一切，人生沒有哪一件事不涉及到人與人之間的關係，所以搞清這些關係是人該學的第一課。克氏不相信隱遁到山中寺廟裏能尋到人生的秘密。
孔子也有一句話：“弟子入則孝，出則弟，謹而信，泛愛眾，而親仁；行有餘力，則以學文。”人該做的六件事中，前五件都是處理與別人的關係，學業排在最後一位。可惜中華民族已經把這樣的寶訓像空礦泉水瓶一樣丟到街角去了。我是在來美國不少年後才第一次讀到這話的。
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.
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).
> 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.
> 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.
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.''
你信得太遲鈍了。
頂一下你！
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.
我女兒是搞體育的，論拳頭好多男孩子都不是對手，社交上也很容易交朋友，但有一陣就是被她的所謂best friend所累，高興時好得不行，過幾天不高興了就象天塌了似的，，，後來我支持她堅決離開那個女孩子和幾個跟班，進到新的朋友圈就好了。
講技巧許多時候是為自己的虛弱打掩護，沒有信心的表現。我的大女兒在高中品學兼優，而且特別善於擺平刺兒頭，黑的白的都不敢在她麵前屁話，全是敢於對抗的結果。別說，人家還特想和她交朋友！我的老二以前也是懦弱，後來我保證，他若打了那些欺負他的孩子，從校長辦公室出來，我就帶他下館子。結果五年級轟了一個白人小子一拳頭，兩年過去了，沒人敢欺負他，自己的自信也漲起來了，照樣品學兼優。我還要求他為朋友也要敢於出拳。看看那些 bully 上來試試。技巧有個球用，要的是骨氣，要的是敢於捍衛尊嚴的勇氣。
1）家長要和孩子有親密互信的關係，支持孩子，這樣孩子的心理好底氣足。家長也能做到知己知彼。
2）家長要幫孩子想辦法，小人兒的頭腦必竟比不上大人，很多時候家長幫一點忙就把問題解決了。