ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => Victorian Education Discussion => Topic started by: ninwa on January 08, 2011, 05:53:24 pm
-
or know anyone who has?
http://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,36106.msg384005.html#msg384005
If so, how in/effective have you found it?
-
Not to that extreme thankfully. =)
-
Not to that extreme thankfully. =)
+1. Only thing there that makes sense there is not getting a grade under A.
-
I know someone who had this sort of life. She now hates school and doesn't care much about her education. I think it's up to the individual if they want it or not..
-
Hmmm... I wonder if that's the reason I'm such a failure since I was allowed to do all those things.
-
Not to that extreme thankfully. =)
+1. Only thing there that makes sense there is not getting a grade under A.
Yeah same here.... A few LOLs in there ;D
'If a Chinese child gets a B—which would never happen—there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A.'
-
All these things happened to me... -fetal position-
Not really. Good god.
-
I'm surprised that...
Wasn't on the list.
I haven't had an upbringing like that and I'm glad.
-
haha... having an Asian mother and Caucasian father, I get pretty varied responses to my studies
I remember one day coming home from school, mortified over my C in my English exam and when I told my parents ... my mum - "that's because you never read books and all you do is Accounting and Japanese everyday and doing Japanese will get you nowhere!" and my dad - "well hey you got A+ in Japanese and Accounting, just improve your English next time k?"
I still haven't forgotten about that English exam to this day :( *shudders*
-
Fortunate to not be in this posistion **dances**
-
Nope. My parents are kind of the opposite actually. I never had a bed time or curfew when growing up and I had to bug them to allow me to learn violin (I was 12 when I started and about 8 years older than the other people in the beginners section of the ensemble I played with!). My dad told me that he failed year 12 technical drawing or something, so he didn't mind if I failed a subject, as long as I tried my best.
But still, parental/family expectations still pressure me sometimes. My friend once bought me a mug which said 'the better you do, the more they expect' which is very true.
-
But still, parental/family expectations still pressure me sometimes. My friend once bought me a mug which said 'the better you do, the more they expect' which is very true.
+1
so true. :)
-
All these things happened to me... -fetal position-
• be in a school play
xD
-
My parents have never been overly pushy in terms of schoolwork, but I think that's because they trust me to do the work myself. :S My spesh 1/2 grades were pretty much all C's and D's but they didn't really mind, because they knew humanities is my strength.
Then again, I had a similar experience, when I was 4, on the piano, where my dad forced me to sit and play almost like how it's described in the article - I was in tears. But now I love playing the piano and I agree - nothing is fun when it's hard, but when you get good at it you really appreciate it.
-
heheh im glad im not musically talented :P
-
I had that kind of upbringing until about year 8 - that list is accurate to a tee - when my parents kind of went "ceebs" and relaxed a bit. I pretty much went from having every aspect of my daily routine dictated to me to laissez-faire. My grades "plummeted" (in Asian terms - i.e. from A+ average to Bs and B+s) in year 9 and half of year 10 until I could work out how to do things for myself - how to organise my day so I had enough time to do all my homework and piano practice etc.
Hence the title of the thread in the water cooler - this kind of parenting makes me sick for her poor children. It cripples rather than nurtures. There is always a point at which the kids must fend for themselves. I'm just grateful my parents stopped when they did so it only slightly impacted on my VCE. I'm curious to see if anyone on VN actually benefited from this kind of parenting style.
-
It asks me to log in then why i try it doesnt work? (wait actually any idea on this?)
Never mind... i got into it from a quote someone posted.... does anyone else find that kind of thing worrying or is it just me?
-
for me, it was only very mild, and leaned more to when i was younger, like in primary school.
now, its more like my parents tell me to get good grades, but they dont mind if i dont. Its just like.. "oh. just do well for your own sake."
-
for me, it was only very mild, and leaned more to when i was younger, like in primary school.
now, its more like my parents tell me to get good grades, but they dont mind if i dont. Its just like.. "oh. just do well for your own sake."
same here ;x, though, I wish they were stricter when I was younger, say 8 - 12 yrs old, and make me study harder or force things into my brain. ;)
-
It was like that when I was learning the piano, when I was younger. Scales, scales and more scales, for hours into the night.
But academically, my parents were never really pushy at all.
-
Not to that extreme thankfully. =)
+1. Only thing there that makes sense there is not getting a grade under A.
Except, for me, make it an A+...
Only for subjects my parents felt were 'important', ie not geo, history (although I liked history a lot in yr10), art, PE, media, eco, bm, LOTE (german and latin).
With all those not to 'care' too much about, it was pretty good! They cared for piano though, and I also game a fair bit. Suppose my parents are pretty lax.
-
My parents never actually pushed me hard in terms of school. The school did. Even when I did get the results that was expected I still thought that it wasn't worth it.
-
My older sister did all the hard work so that I didn't have any of these problems. She did the nagging or whatever so that sleepovers etc. could occur. Thank to that I was having sleepovers from yr 1 onwards.
-
I had that kind of upbringing until about year 8 - that list is accurate to a tee - when my parents kind of went "ceebs" and relaxed a bit. I pretty much went from having every aspect of my daily routine dictated to me to laissez-faire. My grades "plummeted" (in Asian terms - i.e. from A+ average to Bs and B+s) in year 9 and half of year 10 until I could work out how to do things for myself - how to organise my day so I had enough time to do all my homework and piano practice etc.
Hence the title of the thread in the water cooler - this kind of parenting makes me sick for her poor children. It cripples rather than nurtures. There is always a point at which the kids must fend for themselves. I'm just grateful my parents stopped when they did so it only slightly impacted on my VCE. I'm curious to see if anyone on VN actually benefited from this kind of parenting style.
But do you think growing up in a Western society is what is making you sick? Do you think if you grew up in let's say China make you change your attitude?
I dunno, just curious.
-
Not all Chinese families are like that.
Mine, is pretty lenient.
-
But do you think growing up in a Western society is what is making you sick? Do you think if you grew up in let's say China make you change your attitude?
I dunno, just curious.
Probably. I wouldn't really know any different - I'd assume everyone was going through it. The culture in Chinese schools is so different (extremely academically driven) that I would probably be upset at my parents for not continuing with their previous style, because I would lose my competitive edge over the other students. Especially since university in China is so damn hard to get into.
-
Not to that extreme thankfully. =)
Yeah exactly, nothing like that at all.
Fortunate to not be in this posistion **dances**
-
Just so that people aren't actually fooled by my joke post before, my upbringing was sort of a compromise of this and...normalcy. My mother was responsible for me learning piano (which I enjoyed anyway, and whilst she knew that at least half an hour a day was probably necessary and disciplined me accordingly, she never "pushed" me to practice beyond this) as well as horn (which...I never practiced...lol). She also made me sit a few extension classes in preparation for scholarship exams starting from around grade 4/5, and also had a period where she made me sit down and do one hour "accelerated learning" tests (never in excess though, just on weekends) for maths/english and so forth.
For the most part, I was free, and even encouraged to explore my interests. I'd probably have died if I had not been allowed to do school productions (as Romperait sort of alluded to, I spent more time rehearsing in year 12 than studying...), and in particular my mother was (as you'd expect...) happy for me to socialise and play around, even to the extent of encouraging me to see friends in my younger years. I actually showed this article to my mother, and she pretty much took my stance on it: whilst there's a place for a certain amount of discipline in bringing up children, it shouldn't come at the complete and utter expense of the child's creativity and independence.
-
My upbringing was a shadow of this; it was never said outright but implied at childhood. That sort of formed an edge inside my own personality as I grew up. I was never really interested in socialising outside of school. Rather than piano or violin I learnt to play the flute instead, a choice of my own that my parents accepted because a) it was cheaper to purchase and b) they wouldn't allow me to play the piano because of a). Now I look back on it, I regret not having the chance to learn and play the piano.
Other than that, my parents were relaxed about my studies as I grew up. Perhaps they feared I couldn't adapt to the new English-speaking environment as I moved overseas twice when I was 5 and when I was 6. I eventually did cope and, with my relaxed schedule at home, I started to game a lot. Although at first it screwed about with my studies at school I learnt how to balance one with the other soon enough. I learnt that it was best for me to concentrate hard in class at school to free up my time at home to game. As for homework and assignments, I never really treated it as anything important; same with studying for tests. Not the most healthy lifestyle, but it kind of worked. Even now, I still have the habit of concentrating really hard in school and just unwind at home by doing various stuff, not studying for 5 hours after school or something.
The difference that pulled me from growing up as lazy gamer with no regard for studies to having a working ethic is probably my love of competition. Having a talented, but equally lazy, older brother that generally excelled at his studies without much study save for the few days leading up to the exam really motivates me to do better. I wouldn't say I'm talented at all in comparison so I needed some hard work to catch up. Granted he was always a few steps in the complexity of the content he learnt, this competitiveness seeped into my school life. I had a huge competition with a best mate of mine as we're in the same class with the same subjects, always aiming to beat him. We were in a constant deadlock in our tests/exams etc. in every class we took; I beat him in some and vice-versa. But the competitiveness of mine really gave me the motivation to actually sit down, take out my pencil and paper and just study. If not, I would have just go out of control and do whatever I wanted. If I didn't have this personality then I would have needed the strictness of my asian parents (that never did come..) to kept me checked.
tl;dr: Nah, my upbringing was different with asian parents.
-
I think I was an asian parent during my school years! Yes, that's right, I was my own asian parent. Although my parents are from the subcontinent and they wanted me to do well, they never really pushed it at all. When I was in kinder, we had this music show and I came home and announced that i wanted to learn the violin and my parents were hesitant. Then by the time i was in pre-prep, I had forced them into taking me to violin lessons, and later piano, clarient and saxophone, much to their dismay! They never forced me to practise, but I was the one who kicked and screamed at the age of five until my parents let me take my violin on holiday to USA with us....I remember having a friend's birthday party when I was six (at maccas LOL), and I was practising piano before it was time to leave. There was this one passage that didn't work (kind of like in the article) and I just sat there, bashing away trying to get it right, despite my friend's party having started. My mum tried to tear me away and actually yelled at me to go get ready for my friend's party, but I just sat there and kept practising...and eventually it worked, and i turned up an hour late LOL. In terms of school; if I ever got below a "good grade", I was the one going nuts and searching for more practice resources and my mum and dad thought it was hilarious, and didn't care...mainly because they knew I felt so horribly about it. I forced my parents to enrol me at North Shore in year one because one of my friends was doing it ...and I wouldn't go out and play until I'd finished all my North Shore homework...same thing during high school...I think most of the time, my mum was trying to get me to go out to parties instead of getting me to study (that said, I did go to all my friends' parties and I did go out, I did take part in music with copious rehearsals outside of school hours.... but not as much as my parents would have liked haha)
I guess what shocked me the most about that article is the lack of autonomy the children had over their own lives, and I reckon I'm lucky that while my life was to an extent, full of rules and discipline like in the article (albeit not so extreme), they were my rules and my discipline, that I chose to put in place on my life...
-
The words of wisdom from the Dux of State. ;)
-
My parents will pretty much let me do whatever I want (within reason). I went out and got drunk every second weekend during year 11 and 12 and I did fine, and I'm on track to achieve all the goals I want to achieve. I think that having relaxed parents has helped me to make my own decisions and realise what I really want in life. It makes me sad to see people whose parents push them in a certain direction when they could obviously be really successful if they were able to make their own choices.
For example I have a friend whose parents pushed her to study science subjects. She used to read my economics and national politics notes and textbooks for fun, and I'm sure she could have really done well in those subjects, but instead she had to do subjects she didn't enjoy, and she probably didn't reach her full potential. She also has really low self-esteem because of the way that her parents treat her, and thinks tha her self-worth is determined by marks at school.
-
I know a fair amount of people at my school who have been prone to this kind of upbringing. In the majority of cases, they haven't reached the level of VCE success that has been expected of them from parents. Whilst people would initially think that having relaxed parents would equate to rebellious children, strict and rigid parenting can result in rebellion too..
-
I know a fair amount of people at my school who have been prone to this kind of upbringing. In the majority of cases, they haven't reached the level of VCE success that has been expected of them from parents. Whilst people would initially think that having relaxed parents would equate to rebellious children, strict and rigid parenting can result in rebellion too..
Couldn't have said it better myself~
-
I know a fair amount of people at my school who have been prone to this kind of upbringing. In the majority of cases, they haven't reached the level of VCE success that has been expected of them from parents. Whilst people would initially think that having relaxed parents would equate to rebellious children, strict and rigid parenting can result in rebellion too..
I think it's the other way around, relaxed parents relaxed children.
-
^^^ Tell that to the rich, non-caring parents of (certain) idiots from Xavier each year... That seems pretty rebellious to me, what they do on muck-up-days
-
I know a fair amount of people at my school who have been prone to this kind of upbringing. In the majority of cases, they haven't reached the level of VCE success that has been expected of them from parents. Whilst people would initially think that having relaxed parents would equate to rebellious children, strict and rigid parenting can result in rebellion too..
I think it's the other way around, relaxed parents relaxed children.
Not necessarily.. relaxed parents would in most cases, be the equivalent of careless parents.. which would in turn produce rebellious children.
-
Children often model their behaviour after parents. Parents who appear to be hardworking will produce the same type of children. Useless parents will breed useless children. Child psychiatry 101
-
Children often model their behaviour after parents. Parents who appear to be hardworking will produce the same type of children. Useless parents will breed useless children. Child psychiatry 101
Agree with the gist of it but i think, bringing the Xavier example again, that if parents are hardworking and don't spend time with their children, their children will be 'useless'. I think the amount of time parents spend with their children (face-to-face) also has an impact as it shows that parents are more caring and loving.
-
^^^ Tell that to the rich, non-caring parents of (certain) idiots from Xavier each year... That seems pretty rebellious to me, what they do on muck-up-days
I know a fair amount of people at my school who have been prone to this kind of upbringing. In the majority of cases, they haven't reached the level of VCE success that has been expected of them from parents. Whilst people would initially think that having relaxed parents would equate to rebellious children, strict and rigid parenting can result in rebellion too..
I think it's the other way around, relaxed parents relaxed children.
Not necessarily.. relaxed parents would in most cases, be the equivalent of careless parents.. which would in turn produce rebellious children.
I'm guessing we have different ideas of relaxed parents.
You seem to think relaxed means deadbeat, where as my idea of relaxed is letting your child do things other than study and play piano, making reference to the OP.
-
I don't think that should be the epitomy of a 'relaxed' parent.. a parent who lets their child do extra-curricular activities is by no means 'relaxed' - they are more so 'normal' in their parenting approach. This is because no parenting style should ever revolve around study, study and more study. It takes a normal parent to let their child play tennis, or the piano, not a 'relaxed' parent. But then again, the level of normality in which parents raise their children is also heavily variable.
-
I'm guessing we have different ideas of relaxed parents.
-
I probably have said this before, but it's not only Asian parents who push their children. I knew a Russian and a Ukrainian and their parents were really strict. For one my Russian friend who's mum is a mathematician told her son that he didn't have the competence to become a mathematician, whilst my Ukrainian friend had a full on anxiety attack in an universuty physics exam because his parents are both physicists and they constantly put pressure on him.
For some reason western culture doesn't enforce strict parenting with regards to academic achievement probably through our PC culture. More importantly I feel that our society doesn't emphasize how important it is to integrate science, arts, etc into our culture.
-
Dude the Russians/Germans are BEASTS! Most Eurasians are.... I have a serb friend who is like a tennis pro, skips SACS to play comps but the teachers forgive him, would have aced VCE if he could be that little bit more bothered. Still got 98.9 (Y)
I hate how everyone says Asians are pro. I think Asians reach a high standard of whatever they do through ardent practice, but honestly, the Russians/Germans/French are I believe the most naturally talented throughout history etc. Only the Japanese come close to be honest. Not being racist, this is just be looking at Nobel Prizes, historical mathematicians and writers etc.
-
Dude the Russians/Germans are BEASTS! Most Eurasians are.... I have a serb friend who is like a tennis pro, skips SACS to play comps but the teachers forgive him, would have aced VCE if he could be that little bit more bothered. Still got 98.9 (Y)
I hate how everyone says Asians are pro. I think Asians reach a high standard of whatever they do through ardent practice, but honestly, the Russians/Germans/French are I believe the most naturally talented throughout history etc. Only the Japanese come close to be honest. Not being racist, this is just be looking at Nobel Prizes, historical mathematicians and writers etc.
Lol!
When I started ice skating (only for fun), I knew a pro skating Russian kid who was only 4. Not only that, but a lot of the Maths/Physics students I know have some form of European heritage.
I think the reason why people think it's innate that Asians are gifted and are pushed, is that they make up the primary number of migrants to Australia (don't quote me, I have no source). Australia doesn't really accommodate culturally for most Europeans (especially eastern Europeans), especially in terms of sport, food (I haven't seen one Hungarian restaurant in Australia WTF?), the main stuff.
-
Dude the Russians/Germans are BEASTS! Most Eurasians are.... I have a serb friend who is like a tennis pro, skips SACS to play comps but the teachers forgive him, would have aced VCE if he could be that little bit more bothered. Still got 98.9 (Y)
I hate how everyone says Asians are pro. I think Asians reach a high standard of whatever they do through ardent practice, but honestly, the Russians/Germans/French are I believe the most naturally talented throughout history etc. Only the Japanese come close to be honest. Not being racist, this is just be looking at Nobel Prizes, historical mathematicians and writers etc.
Lol!
When I started ice skating (only for fun), I knew a pro skating Russian kid who was only 4. Not only that, but a lot of the Maths/Physics students I know have some form of European heritage.
I think the reason why people think it's innate that Asians are gifted and are pushed, is that they make up the primary number of migrants to Australia (don't quote me, I have no source). Australia doesn't really accommodate culturally for most Europeans (especially eastern Europeans), especially in terms of sport, food (I haven't seen one Hungarian restaurant in Australia WTF?), the main stuff.
Yea, but the reason why I rationalise that Russians/whatever european race are intellectually usually naturally SMARTER than Asians in general or become smarter is because, look at all the people who discover this cure or this immunization. They're rarely Asian because while Asians APPEAR to make up the majority of doctors/lawyers/WHATEVER socially esteemed career there is, it's always some cauacsian that has innovation to research and explore and expand and push boundaries.
Not generalising, once more going on just history.
-
Dude the Russians/Germans are BEASTS! Most Eurasians are.... I have a serb friend who is like a tennis pro, skips SACS to play comps but the teachers forgive him, would have aced VCE if he could be that little bit more bothered. Still got 98.9 (Y)
I hate how everyone says Asians are pro. I think Asians reach a high standard of whatever they do through ardent practice, but honestly, the Russians/Germans/French are I believe the most naturally talented throughout history etc. Only the Japanese come close to be honest. Not being racist, this is just be looking at Nobel Prizes, historical mathematicians and writers etc.
Lol!
When I started ice skating (only for fun), I knew a pro skating Russian kid who was only 4. Not only that, but a lot of the Maths/Physics students I know have some form of European heritage.
I think the reason why people think it's innate that Asians are gifted and are pushed, is that they make up the primary number of migrants to Australia (don't quote me, I have no source). Australia doesn't really accommodate culturally for most Europeans (especially eastern Europeans), especially in terms of sport, food (I haven't seen one Hungarian restaurant in Australia WTF?), the main stuff.
Yea, but the reason why I rationalise that Russians/whatever european race are intellectually usually naturally SMARTER than Asians in general or become smarter is because, look at all the people who discover this cure or this immunization. They're rarely Asian because while Asians APPEAR to make up the majority of doctors/lawyers/WHATEVER socially esteemed career there is, it's always some cauacsian that has innovation to research and explore and expand and push boundaries.
Not generalising, once more going on just history.
I think in the coming generations we'll see more asians and other ethnicities becoming high flying high achievers in their fields, and especially in research. A lot of the people who are on the frontier of such things are quite old, and let's face it, most of the groundbreaking research takes place in Europe/England/America/Australia, where the older population is still 'caucasian'. I think there will be a more even spread that reflects our changing demography in the generation to come.
-
^ Hopefully.
-
^ Hopefully.
could be you iffets!
-
I'm inclined to agree with fuzzy. Iffets is thinking too recently - we're dealing with an age where Asia is recovering from stagnation, and where even giants such as China are still considered "developing". In such a state, of course European nations are going to have better numbers in regards to Nobel Prize winners and so forth - most Asian nations are still struggling to match the West technologically and socio-economically, never mind in terms of innovation. This applies even to Asians living in Australia, considering that the demographic for such is comprised mostly of 1st generation migrants and their immediate offspring. Give Asians some time to get out of their little rut of practicality and they'll return to form a bit.
-
I'm inclined to agree with fuzzy. Iffets is thinking too recently - we're dealing with an age where Asia is recovering from stagnation, and where even giants such as China are still considered "developing". In such a state, of course European nations are going to have better numbers in regards to Nobel Prize winners and so forth - most Asian nations are still struggling to match the West technologically and socio-economically, never mind in terms of innovation. This applies even to Asians living in Australia, considering that the demographic for such is comprised mostly of 1st generation migrants and their immediate offspring. Give Asians some time to get out of their little rut of practicality and they'll return to form a bit.
That said, I don't think Asians will be able to overtake the Europeans in these fields for quite a loooooooong while. By that I mean Asians in Asia, not in Western countries.
-
I'm inclined to agree with fuzzy. Iffets is thinking too recently - we're dealing with an age where Asia is recovering from stagnation, and where even giants such as China are still considered "developing". In such a state, of course European nations are going to have better numbers in regards to Nobel Prize winners and so forth - most Asian nations are still struggling to match the West technologically and socio-economically, never mind in terms of innovation. This applies even to Asians living in Australia, considering that the demographic for such is comprised mostly of 1st generation migrants and their immediate offspring. Give Asians some time to get out of their little rut of practicality and they'll return to form a bit.
That said, I don't think Asians will be able to overtake the Europeans in these fields for quite a loooooooong while. By that I mean Asians in Asia, not in Western countries.
Yeah of course - probably not in our life times, anyway.
-
Dude the Russians/Germans are BEASTS! Most Eurasians are.... I have a serb friend who is like a tennis pro, skips SACS to play comps but the teachers forgive him, would have aced VCE if he could be that little bit more bothered. Still got 98.9 (Y)
I hate how everyone says Asians are pro. I think Asians reach a high standard of whatever they do through ardent practice, but honestly, the Russians/Germans/French are I believe the most naturally talented throughout history etc. Only the Japanese come close to be honest. Not being racist, this is just be looking at Nobel Prizes, historical mathematicians and writers etc.
Lol!
When I started ice skating (only for fun), I knew a pro skating Russian kid who was only 4. Not only that, but a lot of the Maths/Physics students I know have some form of European heritage.
I think the reason why people think it's innate that Asians are gifted and are pushed, is that they make up the primary number of migrants to Australia (don't quote me, I have no source). Australia doesn't really accommodate culturally for most Europeans (especially eastern Europeans), especially in terms of sport, food (I haven't seen one Hungarian restaurant in Australia WTF?), the main stuff.
Yea, but the reason why I rationalise that Russians/whatever european race are intellectually usually naturally SMARTER than Asians in general or become smarter is because, look at all the people who discover this cure or this immunization. They're rarely Asian because while Asians APPEAR to make up the majority of doctors/lawyers/WHATEVER socially esteemed career there is, it's always some cauacsian that has innovation to research and explore and expand and push boundaries.
Not generalising, once more going on just history.
I agree with this.
Unless a field has $$$ attached to it, Westerners and Asians want nothing to do with it. Hence why you still see Europeans literally owning research areas. I lol at the fact that my physics classes are almost asianless (even then the Asians are only engineers) and in Business Finance I'm the foreigner.
I make these generalizations based on impressions too. Most people I speak to go "If you like physics why not engineering?" or "You love Maths why didn't you do Actuarial studies?" (This comes from both Asians & Westerners).
Having said all this, I have also seen a few people from the Middle East do Maths. If you look at history it was sort of their domain. The most well recognized mathematician is Euclid who was Egyptian. If anyone on this thread is a Melbourne uni student who's considering studying the history & philosophy of science, you'll see a lot of Europe's mathematical knowledge came from the middle east.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
Looking at this, many Asian countries do indeed have the potential to outdo the European nations in terms of research. As a matter of fact, this trend is already starting to surface in the Nobel Prize Laureates. Here are the recipients of physics and chemistry in the last three years.
Charles Kuen Kao, Yoichiro Nambu, Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, Ei-ichi Negishi, Akira Suzuki, Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Osamu Shimomura, Roger Y. Tsien.
The nobel prizze is a poor indicator anyway. There is a great chance that many innovations by the Chinese were either ignored due to their Communist ties or kept secret. Japan is probably more focused on paying off their enormous debts and during the war periods, due to their position against the Swedes, were probably ignored anyway.
-
^ majority japanese LOL. But I did discuss this with EZ and its true social and financial situations of each country affect their performance in terms of this intellect discussion.
-
^ majority japanese LOL. But I did discuss this with EZ and its true social and financial situations of each country affect their performance in terms of this intellect discussion.
Yeah, Japan's the only one that's recovered from being a developing nation...
-
The most well recognized mathematician is Euclid who was Egyptian
No he was Ancient Greek.
-
China is far from a developing nation tbh. Consider this, Australia, as well as many other surrounding nations are completely dependant on China. For example, due to the recent recession, America is in debt to both China as well as Japan.
Either way, I'm putting bets on these countries in the near future (eg. next year). Another unsung hero in terms of innovation is Singapore. Had a relatively strong economy for some time due to their ability to monopolise the Malayan peninsula. However, because of their lack of exports, they were forced to rely on inventing high tech products.
-
Self motivation is far, far more important for long term success than parental pressure.
China is far from a developing nation tbh.
perhaps you meant 'developed' nation?
Yea, but the reason why I rationalise that Russians/whatever european race are intellectually usually naturally SMARTER than Asians in general or become smarter is because, look at all the people who discover this cure or this immunization. They're rarely Asian because while Asians APPEAR to make up the majority of doctors/lawyers/WHATEVER socially esteemed career there is, it's always some cauacsian that has innovation to research and explore and expand and push boundaries.
Not generalising, once more going on just history.
Most of the innovation in the past 100 years has come out of Europe and the US, because of the larger focus on childhood education. Whilst Albert Einstein was complaining about boredom in primary school, his counterparts in India and China were growing up illiterate and living on farms they didn't own.
Exposure to education is the key here. Only once a substantial cross-section of the population is exposed to educational opportunities (like the case is now in China), can you make such an assessment: that one race/nationality is inherently more intelligent than another.
Although I do see a separate problem developing, particular within migrant and Asian communities - in which academic brilliance comes at the expense of practical life experience. We see now in China a growing culture of rigid adherence to textbooks and rote learning that unfortunately stymies innovation and creativity, whilst purveying total conformity to the nationwide examination system. You can see similar things here with VCE students.
Often those with the highest VCE scores are least adept for life beyond the classroom.
-
I agree with Chavi. The education system in Western societies tend to focus more on the expansion of ones knowledge beyond that of testing and examinations that fosters creativity and innovation. Even though Japan has had a hand in the development in technology and other similar fields, much of their education doesn't escape the similarities between the education in Asian countries.
For example, when I was 4 and studying in Malaysia, I was placed in a tuition centers for various subjects including English. This is normal over there, practically encouraged as most students enroll in private tuition centers. From what I gather if I had grown up in Malaysia, I would have attended school from ~7am-1pm (or the afternoon shift from 2pm-6pm I think it was). Then return home for a meal and get ready for a tuition that can start anywhere from 4-9pm and late into the night. I know that this is also apparent in Singapore and, to a lesser extent, Japan. Check this out for a short but somewhat interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuition_center
In Japan the majority of the focus on tuition is on those in the final year of their high school, readying themselves to take entrance exams into Universities (as each university has their own entrance exam). Students would attend these tuition for the particular university they are aiming for the sole purpose of passing and entering. Many would even sleep in class during the day so they can get some rest for tuition at night. Graduating from a prestigious University in Japan is more significant than in Western societies, or so I've been told.
Now all this repetitive education in classrooms and tuition really does "stymie innovation and creativity", to quote Chavi. It's effective in achieving great results in examinations and such but doesn't really do much for creativity and innovation; I think that's a different mindset that needs to be achieved.
-
For some reason western culture doesn't enforce strict parenting with regards to academic achievement probably through our PC culture. More importantly I feel that our society doesn't emphasize how important it is to integrate science, arts, etc into our culture.
I dont know if our society not carrying out the first sentence is a bad thing.. or due to our PC culture. I wouldn't like to see ultra strict parenting (mainland chinese style) in regard to our academic pursuits.
Also, i think relaxed parenting is probably the way to go about it. My parents were relatively relaxed but also showed that they were there and still took an interest in what i did and what happened to me. Both those things are probably ingredients in the recipe to success.
I've seen people and even friends, who have had very strict parents. Sure they behave but so do i and i dont have strict parents. Some of them were pushed incredibly academically hard... it's just plain sapped the personality out of them. They dont have many interests or enjoy much outside of what happened in VCE. It's just a little sad if you ask me. Seems like a hollow shell of what a teenager should be and enjoy.
Also, if they're strict who knows the kids might rebel.
I reckon a good mix of being relaxed and providing an open environment but while still caring and guiding them is the way to go.
-
I probably have said this before, but it's not only Asian parents who push their children. I knew a Russian and a Ukrainian and their parents were really strict. For one my Russian friend who's mum is a mathematician told her son that he didn't have the competence to become a mathematician, whilst my Ukrainian friend had a full on anxiety attack in an universuty physics exam because his parents are both physicists and they constantly put pressure on him.
For some reason western culture doesn't enforce strict parenting with regards to academic achievement probably through our PC culture. More importantly I feel that our society doesn't emphasize how important it is to integrate science, arts, etc into our culture.
I think there is a bias in the way literature is appreciated and the Nobel Prize is awarded. Assumbly, we reward the things we value, and if Asian cultures value different things than European ones. Therefore, it's more likely that Europeans will win what are essentially European awards, such as the Nobel Prize.
That's why I don't agree with measuring development through GDP. Just because we value a high GDP, doesn't mean that others will prioritise it as well.
For some reason western culture doesn't enforce strict parenting with regards to academic achievement probably through our PC culture. More importantly I feel that our society doesn't emphasize how important it is to integrate science, arts, etc into our culture.
I dont know if our society not carrying out the first sentence is a bad thing.. or due to our PC culture. I wouldn't like to see ultra strict parenting (mainland chinese style) in regard to our academic pursuits.
Also, i think relaxed parenting is probably the way to go about it. My parents were relatively relaxed but also showed that they were there and still took an interest in what i did and what happened to me. Both those things are probably ingredients in the recipe to success.
I've seen people and even friends, who have had very strict parents. Sure they behave but so do i and i dont have strict parents. Some of them were pushed incredibly academically hard... it's just plain sapped the personality out of them. They dont have many interests or enjoy much outside of what happened in VCE. It's just a little sad if you ask me. Seems like a hollow shell of what a teenager should be and enjoy.
Also, if they're strict who knows the kids might rebel.
I reckon a good mix of being relaxed and providing an open environment but while still caring and guiding them is the way to go.
I'm inclined to agree. I don't think we actually do have an overly 'PC' culture (I mean, in the long term, we are able to publish whatever political opinions we want pretty much and have all sorts of freedoms to express ideas - even very stupid and potentially damaging ideas - which is historically quite rare).
I think strict parents work for some people and absolutely fail to work for others. But. even where strictness does work, you lose in building a compassionate relationship with your parents (e.g. how can you ask for relationship advice from someone who locked you in your room and starved you until you learned a piece for piano?). So, if you are going to be 'strict', you need to be able to balance that with the fact that the role of the parent isn't necessarily just a disciplinarian - they can als be an advice giver, for instance.
-
Creativity and innovation has never been hindered in Asian countries. They have shown historically to be inferior to the Europeans in terms of creativity. One only needs to compare the countries to see that China and Japan has been outdone in virtually every creative area whether it may art, literature, music or inventions. China's last great burst of innovation prior to the late 20th century came from the Song Dynasty a millinium ago. The education system has nothing to do with it.
Besides that, even if it is true that their brutal education inhibits their ability, it is important to note that Japan is still the top country in the area of robotics and electronics. Most of the major Asian countries also outdo most current European countries in terms of Research and Development as well
-
Creativity and innovation has never been hindered in Asian countries. They have shown historically to be inferior to the Europeans in terms of creativity. One only needs to compare the countries to see that China and Japan has been outdone in virtually every creative area whether it may art, literature, music or inventions. China's last great burst of innovation prior to the late 20th century came from the Song Dynasty a millinium ago. The education system has nothing to do with it.
Besides that, even if it is true that their brutal education inhibits their ability, it is important to note that Japan is still the top country in the area of robotics and electronics. Most of the major Asian countries also outdo most current European countries in terms of Research and Development as well
I'm sorry, but the first half of your post is the most ridiculous overgeneralisation I've ever seen. How much do you actually know about Asian art, literature and music? Yes, most of it hasn't really hit the spotlight in the West, but that's because it has to be translated first before Western culture even becomes aware of it. I went to Japan fairly recently, and most of the people there hadn't heard of people famous in the West, such as Jane Austen, Van Gogh, etc. - in the same sort of sense, I'm sure that many of them might be inclined to think "Wow, our culture has so many more famous artists than other cultures". It's all relative.
Also, what do you mean precisely in regards to innovation? I know as a fact that many of the greatest works in the Chinese literary canon (Journey to the West, Dream of the Red Chamber) were composed well after that, for instance...
In regards to history as well, I'd like to point out that Europe has historically always been in a state of interaction, with nations constantly at war, borrowing from each others' language/culture, etc. In contrast, look at Asia; apart from the fact that China and Japan share half of a writing system, and apart from a couple of similarities between languages, Asian countries have stuck mostly to themselves, experiencing civil wars. Spreading of culture often arises from conflict and, of course, cross-cultural interaction; in contrast to this, the fact that Asian countries have stuck mostly to themselves means that their culture has had less opportunity to become more prolific.
-
If you are sure that my observations are wrong, you are free to dispute it. But, yes, I did overgeneralise. I failed to take into consideration that a lot of Asian literature is quite esoteric. For example, the authors for The Water Margin, Dream of the Red Chamber and Journey to the West are often disputed. It is quite possible that a number of others have faded into obscurity but this could be incorrect.
By innovation, I meant technological innovation, not literary.
Lastly, Asian countries did indeed experience a lot of interaction with other nations. Take the Silk Road for example. It has been used for Silk trade with other nations for a very long. Ditto for the spice trade. The prominent belief of Buddhism also meant that East Asian nations borrowed a lot from India.
-
If you are sure that my observations are wrong, you are free to dispute it. But, yes, I did overgeneralise. I failed to take into consideration that a lot of Asian literature is quite esoteric. For example, the authors for The Water Margin, Dream of the Red Chamber and Journey to the West are often disputed. It is quite possible that a number of others have faded into obscurity but this could be incorrect.
By innovation, I meant technological innovation, not literary.
Lastly, Asian countries did indeed experience a lot of interaction with other nations. Take the Silk Road for example. It has been used for Silk trade with other nations for a very long. Ditto for the spice trade. The prominent belief of Buddhism also meant that East Asian nations borrowed a lot from India.
In regards to trade, don't quote me on this (history is a bit shoddy), but I'm fairly certain that it was mostly just "herpa derp we'll give you shiz and you give us shiz, coolios", nothing like the manner in which English people were all made to learn French and then famous musicians went internationally to study and so forth. Buddhism is going back ages ago (at a time when you know, Genghis Khan and co. could still go off internationally and invade China), not at a time when Asian countries were still disputing with each other all the time. On that note, I'm pretty sure during the immediate millenia when Buddhism spread to China (early AD), Asian nations such as China were at the apex of the world technologically...
-
Asian nations such as China were at the apex of the world technologically...
And now they're good for manufacturing and outsourcing Western-made products.
Also interestingly, Asian countries seem to be behind musically. From what I understand Western styles of music (classical, pop, electronica) are imported into China, and not the other way around.
That said, today's young progenitors of classical music in Australia are generally Asian.
Inherent Asian musical talent, or overbearing parents?
-
They trade products commonly produced in their lands. That is, in a way, immersing themselves with each others culture. Silk is a cultural product of the land and is traded with other countries. When people trade, they also bring their language and culture with them. A lot of religious conversions occur through trade itself. If you look at South East Asia, countries there have strong Islamic and Hindu beliefs as well as traditions.
I don't really understand the rest of your post. :/
-
Asian nations such as China were at the apex of the world technologically...
And now they're good for manufacturing and outsourcing Western-made products.
Also interestingly, Asian countries seem to be behind musically. From what I understand Western styles of music (classical, pop, electronica) are imported into China, and not the other way around.
That said, today's young progenitors of classical music in Australia are generally Asian.
Inherent Asian musical talent, or overbearing parents?
I vote overbearing parents. Or maybe not overbearing, but just the culture that asian kids should learn piano/violin. :D
I get what you mean about western music styles being imported into Asia. I find a lot of C-Pop/K-Pop/J-Pop kinda similar to each other. But then again, I don't really listen to that type of music so I'm not one to say. I'm sure a lot of asian music fans would disagree.
-
Also interestingly, Asian countries seem to be behind musically. From what I understand Western styles of music (classical, pop, electronica) are imported into China, and not the other way around.
That said, today's young progenitors of classical music in Australia are generally Asian.
Inherent Asian musical talent, or overbearing parents?
You're affirming the consequent - just because Asian music isn't exported much doesn't mean that it's "behind". In terms of what you're saying, it's not even Western styles that are being imported into Asia - it's more just American (note, not Western - American) music that's getting big there. Ask someone in China/Japan if they know who AC/DC is, or Nightwish; in this case, it's nothing to do with culture, but more to do with the fact that rich American artists have the wealth and popularity to expand globally.
As somebody who dabbles a bit in C-Pop/J-Pop, Asian popular music tends to still differ in terms of construction - it's usually a lot more serene, and the lyrical content so forth is generally quite a bit different to that of Western stuff.
In terms of the Asian classical music issue, it's more to do with the fact that orchestral instruments have taken over the world. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on this issue (Ninwa, are you around?), but Asian music is based on pentatonics, whereas Western stuff has...more notes to play around with. The West isn't suddenly going to just reduce the notes it generally works with - it's more about Asian classical composers seeing a bunch of new styles which expand beyond what they're used to, and adapting towards them. Take this entire paragraph with a grain of salt (this is where I really have little to no idea, in all honesty), but at least for me, I can't see a culture as passionate as the West suddenly deciding to back down into the serenity of Asian classical music, which is all almost meditative.
@Asian musical talent, ask someone who knows, eg. Ninwa. Do note though that at the very least (and I know this as fact), the musical standard in places like Japan and China ****s all over Australia (and we like to value our musical scene...). Also, a lot of famous characters in the musical field nowadays (not just drilled kids who get technical skillz really quickly) are Asian, such as Lang Lang, Seiji Ozawa, etc.
They trade products commonly produced in their lands. That is, in a way, immersing themselves with each others culture. Silk is a cultural product of the land and is traded with other countries. When people trade, they also bring their language and culture with them. A lot of religious conversions occur through trade itself. If you look at South East Asia, countries there have strong Islamic and Hindu beliefs as well as traditions.
I don't really understand the rest of your post. :/
Basically, Buddhism era=era when China was still open to lots of interaction with other nations in a more open (lol overuse of the word open) way, and where stuff like Mongols invading (ie. international threats still mattering) was important. In this era, lots and lots of innovation and advancement.
Then China becomes all insular, sticks to itself, and only gets culture through trade. Meanwhile in Europe, nations such as England and France are having hissy fits at one another, forcing each others' nations to learn each others' languages, interact and understand each other through diplomacy, etc. See how this forces more cultural development, in comparison to a nation that is content to let some materials pass around, but which is otherwise happy to just sit back and lol?
Asian nations such as China were at the apex of the world technologically...
And now they're good for manufacturing and outsourcing Western-made products.
Also interestingly, Asian countries seem to be behind musically. From what I understand Western styles of music (classical, pop, electronica) are imported into China, and not the other way around.
That said, today's young progenitors of classical music in Australia are generally Asian.
Inherent Asian musical talent, or overbearing parents?
I get what you mean about western music styles being imported into Asia. I find a lot of C-Pop/K-Pop/J-Pop kinda similar to each other. But then again, I don't really listen to that type of music so I'm not one to say. I'm sure a lot of asian music fans would disagree.
K-Pop/J-Pop difference doesn't count - the two countries are close and share a lot of pop culture from what I hear. It'd be like comparing Australian and American music. C-Pop (China being the more insular big Asian nation) has its own distinct sound which is a bit more serene and ballady than the more upbeat K-Pop/J-Pop. It's like how very European music is often a lot more metal/bubblegum poppish, whereas the more mass-market American stuff sounds more electronic and technoish (or something like that).
-
Basically, Buddhism era=era when China was still open to lots of interaction with other nations in a more open (lol overuse of the word open) way, and where stuff like Mongols invading (ie. international threats still mattering) was important. In this era, lots and lots of innovation and advancement.
Then China becomes all insular, sticks to itself, and only gets culture through trade. Meanwhile in Europe, nations such as England and France are having hissy fits at one another, forcing each others' nations to learn each others' languages, interact and understand each other through diplomacy, etc. See how this forces more cultural development, in comparison to a nation that is content to let some materials pass around, but which is otherwise happy to just sit back and lol?
The Mongolian Empire was established in 1206 whereas Buddhism was discovered in China at about 100 CE? What innovation and advancement specifically did this bring?
Trade is a form of diplomacy, which as you said, encourages cultural development. I don't see what your point against this is. Interacting and understanding each other occurs during trade as well. Missionaries, scholars, interested people are amongst others who go on trade journeys in an attempt to understand other cultures. Trade is not restricted just to the exchanging of stuff for cash
-
Basically, Buddhism era=era when China was still open to lots of interaction with other nations in a more open (lol overuse of the word open) way, and where stuff like Mongols invading (ie. international threats still mattering) was important. In this era, lots and lots of innovation and advancement.
Then China becomes all insular, sticks to itself, and only gets culture through trade. Meanwhile in Europe, nations such as England and France are having hissy fits at one another, forcing each others' nations to learn each others' languages, interact and understand each other through diplomacy, etc. See how this forces more cultural development, in comparison to a nation that is content to let some materials pass around, but which is otherwise happy to just sit back and lol?
The Mongolian Empire was established in 1206 whereas Buddhism was discovered in China at about 100 CE? What innovation and advancement specifically did this bring?
Trade is a form of diplomacy, which as you said, encourages cultural development. I don't see what your point against this is. Interacting and understanding each other occurs during trade as well. Missionaries, scholars, interested people are amongst others who go on trade journeys in an attempt to understand other cultures. Trade is not restricted just to the exchanging of stuff for cash
Point taken re: my missing the Mongols by a millenia (>.>). And I wasn't saying Buddhism brought about innovation and advancement - it was more a reply to your saying Asia was open to really open interaction at one point (ie. two millenia ago), and me stating that that's why that period was such a golden age.
@diplomacy, sure, but there's a difference between Asia's sort of sitting back going "LOL OTHER NATIONS" and Europe shoving each other's throats down each other all the time. Even in the Mongol period which you alluded to (1200s?), Asia was ahead, with the printing press, the compass, and gunpowder all being well in use whilst Europe was still obtaining these technologies. Then there's a lack of international war over there, and Asia stagnates.
Believe it or not, war is significant for technology. When in war, countries work harder than usual in getting ahead - look at the (not really a war but the point stands) Cold War, where Russia suddenly pushes ahead, and where the US is trying to maintain a lead. Take http://science.howstuffworks.com/war-drive-technological-advancement.htm/printable for instance; as it states, stuff gets developed for war, and then gets transferred for non-war use. This in turn leads to intellectual and cultural development; war gives rise to heights of emotions (happiness, suffering, etc.) and gives commentators things to comment on. How much of greatest Western literature is at least partially built upon warfare?
-
"I think the Chinese parenting approach has its value in that it is great at producing child prodigies in music and math. The problem of course is those are restricted fields. The draw back is that few Chinese kids turn out very well equipped for success in the modern world. The reason is that all that rote learning and drilling isn't conducive to developing creative thinking abilities; and avoidance of sleepovers, school plays, sports, etc. doesn't make them very team oriented - a real draw back in the modern world. I'm speaking from the experience of living and working in China for 11 years. My Chinese staff all have very high IQ's, possibly higher than the Westerners in the office, and they can all calculate the most complex math problems in their heads while I'm still fumbling with my calculator. But few of them have the skills to lead a team or solve a real problem in today's business world. At the end of the day I'd hire an American from a second rate university over a Chinese with top grades from the top university in China. Why? They know about team work and can think outside the box.
It seems ironic that when people in China are questioning the Chinese approach to parenting and education that an American professor (albeit of Chinese ancestry) is promoting that same method that has been found wanting here to a Western audience. But I don't want to totally diss the Chinese approach - I think there has to be a middle way. Unfortunately this article doesn't promote a balanced approach. Western parents who adopt the Chinese approach in its entirety will come to rue the day."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read#articleTabs_comments%3D%26articleTabs%3Dcomments%26commentId%3D1942437
-
"I think the Chinese parenting approach has its value in that it is great at producing child prodigies in music and math. The problem of course is those are restricted fields. The draw back is that few Chinese kids turn out very well equipped for success in the modern world. The reason is that all that rote learning and drilling isn't conducive to developing creative thinking abilities; and avoidance of sleepovers, school plays, sports, etc. doesn't make them very team oriented - a real draw back in the modern world. I'm speaking from the experience of living and working in China for 11 years. My Chinese staff all have very high IQ's, possibly higher than the Westerners in the office, and they can all calculate the most complex math problems in their heads while I'm still fumbling with my calculator. But few of them have the skills to lead a team or solve a real problem in today's business world. At the end of the day I'd hire an American from a second rate university over a Chinese with top grades from the top university in China. Why? They know about team work and can think outside the box.
It seems ironic that when people in China are questioning the Chinese approach to parenting and education that an American professor (albeit of Chinese ancestry) is promoting that same method that has been found wanting here to a Western audience. But I don't want to totally diss the Chinese approach - I think there has to be a middle way. Unfortunately this article doesn't promote a balanced approach. Western parents who adopt the Chinese approach in its entirety will come to rue the day."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read#articleTabs_comments%3D%26articleTabs%3Dcomments%26commentId%3D1942437
I entirely agree with this comment, and it applies to my own experience as well with a lot of Chinese people I've met. China is learning - Mrs. Yale Professor of Law is just an extreme idiot.
-
"I think the Chinese parenting approach has its value in that it is great at producing child prodigies in music and math. The problem of course is those are restricted fields. The draw back is that few Chinese kids turn out very well equipped for success in the modern world. The reason is that all that rote learning and drilling isn't conducive to developing creative thinking abilities; and avoidance of sleepovers, school plays, sports, etc. doesn't make them very team oriented - a real draw back in the modern world. I'm speaking from the experience of living and working in China for 11 years. My Chinese staff all have very high IQ's, possibly higher than the Westerners in the office, and they can all calculate the most complex math problems in their heads while I'm still fumbling with my calculator. But few of them have the skills to lead a team or solve a real problem in today's business world. At the end of the day I'd hire an American from a second rate university over a Chinese with top grades from the top university in China. Why? They know about team work and can think outside the box.
It seems ironic that when people in China are questioning the Chinese approach to parenting and education that an American professor (albeit of Chinese ancestry) is promoting that same method that has been found wanting here to a Western audience. But I don't want to totally diss the Chinese approach - I think there has to be a middle way. Unfortunately this article doesn't promote a balanced approach. Western parents who adopt the Chinese approach in its entirety will come to rue the day."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read#articleTabs_comments%3D%26articleTabs%3Dcomments%26commentId%3D1942437
I entirely agree with this comment, and it applies to my own experience as well with a lot of Chinese people I've met. China is learning - Mrs. Yale Professor of Law is just an extreme idiot.
I enjoyed reading her parenting style. Which family wouldn't like to raise a bunch of child prodigies who will later earn their millions and bring honour to their parents in the lucky country?
-
I think a lot of people are skipping over the fact that Asian parents still rely upon their children, especially males, after they retire. It's not uncommon to see Asian parents, their children and their spouses living under one roof. More likely than not, it'll be the Asian parents + their child + his spouse under one roof with the other children supporting them financially.
Just as a quick note on the creativity/innovation in Chinese history, I really think the cuisine should fit into this. Although technology advancements is the base criteria for such things, the huge variety of cuisine and the different techniques used plays a small but significant role. In my 'culture' of Fuzhou, soups are a quintessential accompany to the meal. Every week, I would have like 4 different types of soup, some containing a 3-5 ingredients and others involving 10-20+ ingredients that harmonize together. Some sweet. Some bitter like hell. Some oddly sour. And some savory or Umami I think was the term. My mum knows dozens of them. And that's only soups.
Sure you can claim that such recipes are passed down generation by generation, but you cannot deny its origins. Why anyone would place tree bark, roots of other trees and flowers, berries, some fermented vegetables etc. together in a soup deliberately without going "Oh hey, let's try something new today" is beyond me.
-
In terms of the Asian classical music issue, it's more to do with the fact that orchestral instruments have taken over the world. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on this issue (Ninwa, are you around?), but Asian music is based on pentatonics, whereas Western stuff has...more notes to play around with. The West isn't suddenly going to just reduce the notes it generally works with - it's more about Asian classical composers seeing a bunch of new styles which expand beyond what they're used to, and adapting towards them. Take this entire paragraph with a grain of salt (this is where I really have little to no idea, in all honesty), but at least for me, I can't see a culture as passionate as the West suddenly deciding to back down into the serenity of Asian classical music, which is all almost meditative.
Hai sorry I left the thread because I can get overly defensive of China and didn't wanna get into a shitstorm. :P
Re: pentatonics, yep. That's why pretty much anybody could play a few notes and make it sound "Asian". The only personal exposure I've had to Asian classical music is being made to learn a piece written by my piano teacher at the time and that was shit, but then again most modern composers are pretty terrible. Having listened to a fair bit of traditional music however, I'm inclined to agree with the meditative comment. When you grow up accustomed to the likes of firey Liszt and darkly passionate Chopin, Asian music tends to seem... bland.
@Asian musical talent, ask someone who knows, eg. Ninwa. Do note though that at the very least (and I know this as fact), the musical standard in places like Japan and China ****s all over Australia (and we like to value our musical scene...). Also, a lot of famous characters in the musical field nowadays (not just drilled kids who get technical skillz really quickly) are Asian, such as Lang Lang, Seiji Ozawa, etc.
Haha. No talent here. Just a lot of exposure to the musical world. I would add this disclaimer:
the musical technique standard in places like Japan and China ****s all over Australia
hence the term "Chinese fingers", referring to the stereotypical ability of Asian musicians to play things with extraordinary technical skill and very very ordinary expression.
I would still say the majority of famous classical pianists are Western. However, there are as you said many up-and-coming brilliant Asian pianists. For those who are interested, I recommend you Youtube Nobuyuki Tsujii - don't Wikipedia him, Youtube him first. I'd say he shits over a lot of the Western pianists today.
-
I think a lot of people are skipping over the fact that Asian parents still rely upon their children, especially males, after they retire. It's not uncommon to see Asian parents, their children and their spouses living under one roof. More likely than not, it'll be the Asian parents + their child + his spouse under one roof with the other children supporting them financially.
Dear God I hope not. :P
Seriously though, I think that comes from the deeply-rooted culture of filial piety. I don't think that's really a direct cause of this insistence that your children be the best of the best. I would (cynically) posit that the need to compete with other parents (my child got 100% what about yours?) has a greater influence.
-
It's definitely a declining concept but it still happens. My uncles still have that kind of system going on in Singapore. My cousin got married recently, having lived with his parents so far, and his wife moved in with them. Same story with my another one of my cousins.
Nevertheless, point taken. That said, I wouldn't say that it's the competition between parents that gives cause for them to be strict with their children's study. Sure, they would be proud if they had done X and Y, but I believe that they want their children to take the opportunities that lay before them and become the best at it.
"If he could be a musical sensation, he can learn <insert instrument> and let's see if he could be. If he could be an academic genius, let's be strict with his studies so he 'wastes' less time on the internet, games and extracocurricular activities. He can learn how to be socially active when he grows into an adult." <-- My postulation on what a strict Asian parent might think. Although why the piano and the violin are the most encouraged instruments to learn is quite beyond me.
-
^ majority japanese LOL. But I did discuss this with EZ and its true social and financial situations of each country affect their performance in terms of this intellect discussion.
I must admit that my Russian friend did spend 7 years in Japan because his father (a physicist) was working in research over there.
The most well recognized mathematician is Euclid who was Egyptian
No he was Ancient Greek.
Damn you wikipedia!!!
For some reason western culture doesn't enforce strict parenting with regards to academic achievement probably through our PC culture. More importantly I feel that our society doesn't emphasize how important it is to integrate science, arts, etc into our culture.
I dont know if our society not carrying out the first sentence is a bad thing.. or due to our PC culture. I wouldn't like to see ultra strict parenting (mainland chinese style) in regard to our academic pursuits.
Also, i think relaxed parenting is probably the way to go about it. My parents were relatively relaxed but also showed that they were there and still took an interest in what i did and what happened to me. Both those things are probably ingredients in the recipe to success.
I've seen people and even friends, who have had very strict parents. Sure they behave but so do i and i dont have strict parents. Some of them were pushed incredibly academically hard... it's just plain sapped the personality out of them. They dont have many interests or enjoy much outside of what happened in VCE. It's just a little sad if you ask me. Seems like a hollow shell of what a teenager should be and enjoy.
Also, if they're strict who knows the kids might rebel.
I reckon a good mix of being relaxed and providing an open environment but while still caring and guiding them is the way to go.
I'm inclined to agree. I don't think we actually do have an overly 'PC' culture (I mean, in the long term, we are able to publish whatever political opinions we want pretty much and have all sorts of freedoms to express ideas - even very stupid and potentially damaging ideas - which is historically quite rare).
I think strict parents work for some people and absolutely fail to work for others. But. even where strictness does work, you lose in building a compassionate relationship with your parents (e.g. how can you ask for relationship advice from someone who locked you in your room and starved you until you learned a piece for piano?). So, if you are going to be 'strict', you need to be able to balance that with the fact that the role of the parent isn't necessarily just a disciplinarian - they can als be an advice giver, for instance.
I agree with the second part, but I stand by my view that Australia being too PC with regards to putting pressure on their kids. For an instance when I was in year 11 and I was studying at a tennis club, a mother came up to me and said "Don't put too much pressure on yourself and you can only do your best" and so on and in my mind I thought WTF, I want to exceed my best.
In Australia we have polar opposites where Asian/European parents are too pushy and get results and westernized parents who don't push their kids at all and much fewer get results. So there is nobody (well maybe a minority) who reaches that happy middle. You can't deny that if you want results, you need to push yourself?
"I think the Chinese parenting approach has its value in that it is great at producing child prodigies in music and math. The problem of course is those are restricted fields. The draw back is that few Chinese kids turn out very well equipped for success in the modern world. The reason is that all that rote learning and drilling isn't conducive to developing creative thinking abilities; and avoidance of sleepovers, school plays, sports, etc. doesn't make them very team oriented - a real draw back in the modern world. I'm speaking from the experience of living and working in China for 11 years. My Chinese staff all have very high IQ's, possibly higher than the Westerners in the office, and they can all calculate the most complex math problems in their heads while I'm still fumbling with my calculator. But few of them have the skills to lead a team or solve a real problem in today's business world. At the end of the day I'd hire an American from a second rate university over a Chinese with top grades from the top university in China. Why? They know about team work and can think outside the box.
It seems ironic that when people in China are questioning the Chinese approach to parenting and education that an American professor (albeit of Chinese ancestry) is promoting that same method that has been found wanting here to a Western audience. But I don't want to totally diss the Chinese approach - I think there has to be a middle way. Unfortunately this article doesn't promote a balanced approach. Western parents who adopt the Chinese approach in its entirety will come to rue the day."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read#articleTabs_comments%3D%26articleTabs%3Dcomments%26commentId%3D1942437
This quote is a rather interesting one.
During tutorials in my summer subject, almost everybody doesn't discuss any problem and you usually find yourself working by yourself (which can be done at home). What startled me the most was when the tutor asked an actuarial student a question, she literally regurgitated a section of the textbook so there was absolutely no original thought.
-
the musical standard in places like Japan and China ****s all over Australia
Lol Australian music is s***! The same goes for Australian TV, I watch the news, but as for TV shows I will usually only watch American stuff.
I personally hate the way that western music is going because it's only commercialized rubbish, so I usually hold onto 60's, 70's, 80's and some of the 90's music where originality still existed. Our top song last year was "like a G6" I mean come on, over 50 years ago there was music that actually tried to mean something.
Also most Post-docs go over seas to do their work because Australia just can't offer the quality of research. I personally would love to go to Germany if I reach post-doc level.
-
That's true, Australia has a lot of problems in terms of our media being dominated by the US and 'brain drain' in universities. I'm not sure why this is. It probably has to do with the fact that it is much cheaper to buy a show from the US than to make a local show, and shows that are made locally tend to be low cost productions (the news, reality shows, sketch comedies). As for research, I think it's a matter of prestige, which we are building on.
-
Dude the Russians/Germans are BEASTS! Most Eurasians are.... I have a serb friend who is like a tennis pro, skips SACS to play comps but the teachers forgive him, would have aced VCE if he could be that little bit more bothered. Still got 98.9 (Y)
I hate how everyone says Asians are pro. I think Asians reach a high standard of whatever they do through ardent practice, but honestly, the Russians/Germans/French are I believe the most naturally talented throughout history etc. Only the Japanese come close to be honest. Not being racist, this is just be looking at Nobel Prizes, historical mathematicians and writers etc.
Practise and natural talent go hand in hand. If Asians can achieve better than Russians/Germans or whatever through brutal practise, then they ARE better because they can practise to get better.
-
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
-
@diplomacy, sure, but there's a difference between Asia's sort of sitting back going "LOL OTHER NATIONS" and Europe shoving each other's throats down each other all the time. Even in the Mongol period which you alluded to (1200s?), Asia was ahead, with the printing press, the compass, and gunpowder all being well in use whilst Europe was still obtaining these technologies. Then there's a lack of international war over there, and Asia stagnates.
None of these can be accredited to the Mongolian invasion as all of them were invented prior 1200. None of them were made in reaction to any specific wars either. Besides that, three of the examples (left out papermaking) were invented specifically in order to improve trade.
Believe it or not, war is significant for technology.
I never argued otherwise. Any sort of incentive is enough for man to advance himself. For every piece of technology invented during wartime, an equal amount of technology is invented during peace.
-
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
Yes, of course, but at the same time there are Chinese pianists who play with natural talent/passion and not just with expressionless Chinese fingers - we just have to ignore the majority (because the number of practiced Chinese pianists is greater, hence a greater number of expressionaless ones).
-
the Russians/Germans/French are I believe the most naturally talented throughout history etc. Only the Japanese come close to be honest.
Throughout history ? How about China? They invented toilet paperrr ? ::)
But yeah I see what you're saying about asians.. I don't know if there are more dumb asians than there are smart asians.. seeing the TB culture that's further expanding..
(sorry if i say the weirdest things) *peace*
-
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
Yes, of course, but at the same time there are Chinese pianists who play with natural talent/passion and not just with expressionless Chinese fingers - we just have to ignore the majority (because the number of practiced Chinese pianists is greater, hence a greater number of expressionaless ones).
The ability to play with passion probably relates to the ability to sense and understand passion. Using an easy example, most pianists probably would not recreate the aesthetics of Beethoven's Fur Elise unless they had any understanding of the emotions in the piece (love for a woman?). Most chinese pianists start at a young age, and the younger we are the lower our EQ ( you may even argue chinese kids are denied the freedom of emotional expression anyway). Hence during their development as a pianist they may spend many years playing without the emotional expression, and hence they become comparatively dull pianists.
-
My parents are asian and are not like that but they just want me to study hard and do well.
When I told them I got 45/50 in accounting they were annoyed that I only got 90% but then I told them that it is not a percentage but a ranking and that it is the top 2% so they are happy now :)
Not sure how my parents will react if I get below an A in a 3/4 subject.
-
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
Yes, of course, but at the same time there are Chinese pianists who play with natural talent/passion and not just with expressionless Chinese fingers - we just have to ignore the majority (because the number of practiced Chinese pianists is greater, hence a greater number of expressionaless ones).
The ability to play with passion probably relates to the ability to sense and understand passion. Using an easy example, most pianists probably would not recreate the aesthetics of Beethoven's Fur Elise unless they had any understanding of the emotions in the piece (love for a woman?). Most chinese pianists start at a young age, and the younger we are the lower our EQ ( you may even argue chinese kids are denied the freedom of emotional expression anyway). Hence during their development as a pianist they may spend many years playing without the emotional expression, and hence they become comparatively dull pianists.
This doesn't change what I'm arguing though. Sure, a lot of Asian pianists will turn out as you've described. However, you need to consider also that anybody who wants to succeed in an area (and particularly in music) needs to be technically proficient, which means lots and lots of practice (I know plenty of aspiring musicians, white and Asian, who practice for ungodly hours every week). My argument is that at the core of Asian countries, there are still enough naturally expressive and talented musicians to match those in others - it's just that said countries look bad because in comparison these musicians are smaller in terms of making up the overall musical population, due to the higher number of technically proficient musicians as a whole. If you want an example of somebody with a drilled, Asian upbringing, who is also amazing at music, just look at Ninwa...
-
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
-
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
Do you claim that Asians are more inherently predisposed to music than Europeans?
-
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
Do you claim that Asians are more inherently predisposed to music than Europeans?
I'm confused by what both you and TT are trying to argue.
@TT, how can it be possible that practice+no talent/passion>practice+talent/passion?
@Chavi, how does TT's statement lead to the conclusion that Asians are inherently more predisposed towards music?
-
I think that to truly be world-class at something you need to have a passion for it, and all professional musicians do.
This may be a generalisation but I think that a lot of asian kids learn music 'because they have to', but later on become grateful for the opportunity - so long as they are not forced into a musical career (and if they choose to pursue one do so of their own volition).
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
How many professional concert pianists haven't been forced to practise for hours at an early age, whether Chinese or non-Chinese? It's likely that concert pianists would have had a similar upbringing to the 'chinese' upbringing. Nobody enjoys doing scales all day, and I doubt many young kids would have the mindset to appreciate Bach or Chopin, but it's building up the tools required for expression. I don't think race comes into it, unless you mean that the Chinese are intrinsically emotionless.
-
My parents are asian and are not like that but they just want me to study hard and do well.
When I told them I got 45/50 in accounting they were annoyed that I only got 90% but then I told them that it is not a percentage but a ranking and that it is the top 2% so they are happy now :)
Not sure how my parents will react if I get below an A in a 3/4 subject.
Come on dude! That's just embarrassing.
With regards to the discussion with music, I was walking through Boxhill centre and the most beautiful music I have ever heard was playing. It was just so calming and I could have listened to it for ages.
-
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
Do you claim that Asians are more inherently predisposed to music than Europeans?
I'm confused by what both you and TT are trying to argue.
@TT, how can it be possible that practice+no talent/passion>practice+talent/passion?
@Chavi, how does TT's statement lead to the conclusion that Asians are inherently more predisposed towards music?
??
when did this become related to music?
i was talking about this statement:
I hate how everyone says Asians are pro. I think Asians reach a high standard of whatever they do through ardent practice, but honestly, the Russians/Germans/French are I believe the most naturally talented throughout history etc.
it has nothing to do with music?
its false in general because we can find a counter example, consider waldner, one of the most talent table tennis players in history no doubt, no chinese players could beat him, however came liu guo liang, his talent when compared to waldner was almost insignificant, he didn't have the brains like waldner nor the willpower, but he practise insanely hard, in an interview, he said he watched countless amount of waldner videos, played people with same style as waldner and eventually beat waldner at all WTTC's.
thus
practice+no talent>practice+talent
and talent is a relative thing, by no talent i interpret that as less talent as someone else
-
I think that to truly be world-class at something you need to have a passion for it, and all professional musicians do.
This may be a generalisation but I think that a lot of asian kids learn music 'because they have to', but later on become grateful for the opportunity - so long as they are not forced into a musical career (and if they choose to pursue one do so of their own volition).
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
How many professional concert pianists haven't been forced to practise for hours at an early age, whether Chinese or non-Chinese? It's likely that concert pianists would have had a similar upbringing to the 'chinese' upbringing. Nobody enjoys doing scales all day, and I doubt many young kids would have the mindset to appreciate Bach or Chopin, but it's building up the tools required for expression. I don't think race comes into it, unless you mean that the Chinese are intrinsically emotionless.
Yea I am generalising, I'm just seeing how most of the time Chinese kids tend not to pursue music after a certain stage while I notice more of the Europeans pursue it.
-
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
Do you claim that Asians are more inherently predisposed to music than Europeans?
I'm confused by what both you and TT are trying to argue.
@TT, how can it be possible that practice+no talent/passion>practice+talent/passion?
@Chavi, how does TT's statement lead to the conclusion that Asians are inherently more predisposed towards music?
??
when did this become related to music?
i was talking about this statement:
I hate how everyone says Asians are pro. I think Asians reach a high standard of whatever they do through ardent practice, but honestly, the Russians/Germans/French are I believe the most naturally talented throughout history etc.
it has nothing to do with music?
its false in general because we can find a counter example, consider waldner, one of the most talent table tennis players in history no doubt, no chinese players could beat him, however came liu guo liang, his talent when compared to waldner was almost insignificant, he didn't have the brains like waldner nor the willpower, but he practise insanely hard, in an interview, he said he watched countless amount of waldner videos, played people with same style as waldner and eventually beat waldner at all WTTC's.
thus
practice+no talent>practice+talent
and talent is a relative thing, by no talent i interpret that as less talent as someone else
That generalisation still doesn't make sense. From the example you've given, it sounds more like Liu Guo Liang practiced specifically to beat Waldner, in which case your inequation should be more like more practice+no talent>practice+talent, which I can agree with as possibly occuring. However, I still don't see how it's possible to say that practice+no talent+practice+talent in general is true - it's like saying that 100+0>100+1, assuming that the two people have practiced the same amount.
I think that to truly be world-class at something you need to have a passion for it, and all professional musicians do.
This may be a generalisation but I think that a lot of asian kids learn music 'because they have to', but later on become grateful for the opportunity - so long as they are not forced into a musical career (and if they choose to pursue one do so of their own volition).
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
How many professional concert pianists haven't been forced to practise for hours at an early age, whether Chinese or non-Chinese? It's likely that concert pianists would have had a similar upbringing to the 'chinese' upbringing. Nobody enjoys doing scales all day, and I doubt many young kids would have the mindset to appreciate Bach or Chopin, but it's building up the tools required for expression. I don't think race comes into it, unless you mean that the Chinese are intrinsically emotionless.
Yea I am generalising, I'm just seeing how most of the time Chinese kids tend not to pursue music after a certain stage while I notice more of the Europeans pursue it.
Refer back to my argument about percentages and proportions - more Asian kids will be drilled into doing lots of music, but really, the same amount of Asians and Europeans come out in the end choosing it as something to do in life. It's just that because there are more Asians who drop out of it, it seems as though less Asian kids will end up pursuing music.
-
^ I don't quite understand what you said LOL, do u mean as in the number of asians doing music initally is high, that even though the same amount of Europeans and Asians pursue music, because initially so many Asians started music, it seems like so many asians drop out when really its because there were more asians to start off with?
-
OMG. i was brought up like that only that:
violin and pianos (music instruments in general) will not get u a job in life unless ur a prodigy which i am obviously not.
AND i tried being no#1 in everything and that didnt happen.
:P oh well. you can either be successful and greatful or unsuccessful and hate your mother.
-
My parents tried to do this stuff to me during primary school but then realised their son isn't so smart and gave up :D
-
^ I don't quite understand what you said LOL, do u mean as in the number of asians doing music initally is high, that even though the same amount of Europeans and Asians pursue music, because initially so many Asians started music, it seems like so many asians drop out when really its because there were more asians to start off with?
Yeah, sorry, may or may not have been out of it/dead/drunk/high/getting killed in Starcraft whilst typing that. :p
-
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
Do you claim that Asians are more inherently predisposed to music than Europeans?
I'm confused by what both you and TT are trying to argue.
@TT, how can it be possible that practice+no talent/passion>practice+talent/passion?
@Chavi, how does TT's statement lead to the conclusion that Asians are inherently more predisposed towards music?
??
when did this become related to music?
i was talking about this statement:
I hate how everyone says Asians are pro. I think Asians reach a high standard of whatever they do through ardent practice, but honestly, the Russians/Germans/French are I believe the most naturally talented throughout history etc.
it has nothing to do with music?
its false in general because we can find a counter example, consider waldner, one of the most talent table tennis players in history no doubt, no chinese players could beat him, however came liu guo liang, his talent when compared to waldner was almost insignificant, he didn't have the brains like waldner nor the willpower, but he practise insanely hard, in an interview, he said he watched countless amount of waldner videos, played people with same style as waldner and eventually beat waldner at all WTTC's.
thus
practice+no talent>practice+talent
and talent is a relative thing, by no talent i interpret that as less talent as someone else
That generalisation still doesn't make sense. From the example you've given, it sounds more like Liu Guo Liang practiced specifically to beat Waldner, in which case your inequation should be more like more practice+no talent>practice+talent, which I can agree with as possibly occuring. However, I still don't see how it's possible to say that practice+no talent+practice+talent in general is true - it's like saying that 100+0>100+1, assuming that the two people have practiced the same amount.
Um... im sorry but you really dont get it do you? cmon it's easy maths...
when did i ever say the converse holds? since you think i said "However, I still don't see how it's possible to say that practice+no talent+practice+talent in general is true" can you please quote me where i said that?
i said practise + talent > practise + no talent in general is FALSE i never said the converse holds did i? and i proved that practise + talent > practise + no talent is FALSE in GENERAL by finding a counterexample. I never went on to prove that practise + no talent > practise + talent in general.
so yea, pls read carefully thanks :)
-
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
Do you claim that Asians are more inherently predisposed to music than Europeans?
I'm confused by what both you and TT are trying to argue.
@TT, how can it be possible that practice+no talent/passion>practice+talent/passion?
@Chavi, how does TT's statement lead to the conclusion that Asians are inherently more predisposed towards music?
??
when did this become related to music?
i was talking about this statement:
I hate how everyone says Asians are pro. I think Asians reach a high standard of whatever they do through ardent practice, but honestly, the Russians/Germans/French are I believe the most naturally talented throughout history etc.
it has nothing to do with music?
its false in general because we can find a counter example, consider waldner, one of the most talent table tennis players in history no doubt, no chinese players could beat him, however came liu guo liang, his talent when compared to waldner was almost insignificant, he didn't have the brains like waldner nor the willpower, but he practise insanely hard, in an interview, he said he watched countless amount of waldner videos, played people with same style as waldner and eventually beat waldner at all WTTC's.
thus
practice+no talent>practice+talent
and talent is a relative thing, by no talent i interpret that as less talent as someone else
That generalisation still doesn't make sense. From the example you've given, it sounds more like Liu Guo Liang practiced specifically to beat Waldner, in which case your inequation should be more like more practice+no talent>practice+talent, which I can agree with as possibly occuring. However, I still don't see how it's possible to say that practice+no talent+practice+talent in general is true - it's like saying that 100+0>100+1, assuming that the two people have practiced the same amount.
Um... im sorry but you really dont get it do you? cmon it's easy maths...
when did i ever say the converse holds? since you think i said "However, I still don't see how it's possible to say that practice+no talent+practice+talent in general is true" can you please quote me where i said that?
i said practise + talent > practise + no talent in general is FALSE i never said the converse holds did i? and i proved that practise + talent > practise + no talent is FALSE in GENERAL by finding a counterexample, a valid method of proof according to discrete mathematics logic. I never went on to prove that practise + no talent > practise + talent in general.
so yea, pls read carefully thanks :)
-
Sorry, as a humanities student I just assumed "in general" to mean "90% of the time" - I forgot that you're a mathsy person and thus use an entirely different set of definitions of language from what I'm used to. Fair enough, point taken, although I think my point still stands as well if we're to take my definition of "in general".
-
I still don't get what you mean lol
Are you still saying I said practise+no talent > practise + talent is true in general? Coz I never said that :)
I merely said
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
is false in general, but never said the converse had to be true in general. I also showed it was false in general using common sense logic.
-
I still don't get what you mean lol
Are you still saying I said practise+no talent > practise + talent is true in general? Coz I never said that :)
I merely said
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
is false in general, but never said the converse had to be true in general. I also showed it was false in general using common sense logic.
Ok, using my definition of in general (ie. 90% of the case, or most of the time, whatever):
If it is false that natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general, then 10% (or whatever figure) of the time natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion, whereas 90% of the time natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion.
If it is true that natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion in general, then 90% of the time natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion, etc. Therefore if it is false that natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general (under my definition, which seems to be the point of misunderstanding here), then it is true that natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion.
Common sense logic indeed. =)
-
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
Do you claim that Asians are more inherently predisposed to music than Europeans?
I'm confused by what both you and TT are trying to argue.
@TT, how can it be possible that practice+no talent/passion>practice+talent/passion?
@Chavi, how does TT's statement lead to the conclusion that Asians are inherently more predisposed towards music?
??
when did this become related to music?
i was talking about this statement:
I hate how everyone says Asians are pro. I think Asians reach a high standard of whatever they do through ardent practice, but honestly, the Russians/Germans/French are I believe the most naturally talented throughout history etc.
it has nothing to do with music?
its false in general because we can find a counter example, consider waldner, one of the most talent table tennis players in history no doubt, no chinese players could beat him, however came liu guo liang, his talent when compared to waldner was almost insignificant, he didn't have the brains like waldner nor the willpower, but he practise insanely hard, in an interview, he said he watched countless amount of waldner videos, played people with same style as waldner and eventually beat waldner at all WTTC's.
thus
practice+no talent>practice+talent
and talent is a relative thing, by no talent i interpret that as less talent as someone else
That generalisation still doesn't make sense. From the example you've given, it sounds more like Liu Guo Liang practiced specifically to beat Waldner, in which case your inequation should be more like more practice+no talent>practice+talent, which I can agree with as possibly occuring. However, I still don't see how it's possible to say that practice+no talent+practice+talent in general is true - it's like saying that 100+0>100+1, assuming that the two people have practiced the same amount.
Um... im sorry but you really dont get it do you? cmon it's easy maths...
when did i ever say the converse holds? since you think i said "However, I still don't see how it's possible to say that practice+no talent+practice+talent in general is true" can you please quote me where i said that?
i said practise + talent > practise + no talent in general is FALSE i never said the converse holds did i? and i proved that practise + talent > practise + no talent is FALSE in GENERAL by finding a counterexample, a valid method of proof according to discrete mathematics logic. I never went on to prove that practise + no talent > practise + talent in general.
so yea, pls read carefully thanks :)
Proof by Contradiction :)
-
o_O
-
I still don't get what you mean lol
Are you still saying I said practise+no talent > practise + talent is true in general? Coz I never said that :)
I merely said
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
is false in general, but never said the converse had to be true in general. I also showed it was false in general using common sense logic.
Ok, using my definition of in general (ie. 90% of the case, or most of the time, whatever):
If it is false that natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general, then 10% (or whatever figure) of the time natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion, whereas 90% of the time natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion.
If it is true that natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion in general, then 90% of the time natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion, etc. Therefore if it is false that natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general (under my definition, which seems to be the point of misunderstanding here), then it is true that natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion.
Common sense logic indeed. =)
sorry but you didn't answer my Qs in my previous posts, still waiting.
also um, you're going offtrack, ive never mentioned anything about "natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general" nor did i ever mention anything about passion, please i beg you to read carefully.
I dont care about what you're trying to prove, since it doesnt relate to anything i said, all i care about is how you are wrong about making this statement about me:
That generalisation still doesn't make sense.
When i didnt even make any generalisations rofl, i just find a counter example to show that
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
is indeed false in general.
so yea... can you please please please show which imaginary "generalisation" i made didnt make any sense?
-
When i didnt even make any generalisations rofl, i just find a counter example to show that ... is indeed false in general.
so yea... can you please please please show which imaginary "generalisation" i made didnt make any sense?
Out of genuine curiosity, how exactly does a single counterexample show that a given statement is false "in general" (with regards to the common-sense definition of "in general" EZ provided)?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample
As far as I can tell you're equivocating in your usage of counterexamples between mathematic logic and philosophical logic.
As far as even that link is concerned, a counterexample shows that a closed statement is false, but EZ's is not a closed statement, but rather a statement concerned with what is the case "in general" (ie, most of the time) and therefore a single counterexample will not do to disprove his claim; after all, implicit in the claim is the admission that counterexamples most likely do exist in the first place.
-
I still don't get what you mean lol
Are you still saying I said practise+no talent > practise + talent is true in general? Coz I never said that :)
I merely said
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
is false in general, but never said the converse had to be true in general. I also showed it was false in general using common sense logic.
Ok, using my definition of in general (ie. 90% of the case, or most of the time, whatever):
If it is false that natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general, then 10% (or whatever figure) of the time natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion, whereas 90% of the time natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion.
If it is true that natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion in general, then 90% of the time natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion, etc. Therefore if it is false that natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general (under my definition, which seems to be the point of misunderstanding here), then it is true that natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion.
Common sense logic indeed. =)
sorry but you didn't answer my Qs in my previous posts, still waiting.
also um, you're going offtrack, ive never mentioned anything about "natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general" nor did i ever mention anything about passion, please i beg you to read carefully.
I dont care about what you're trying to prove, since it doesnt relate to anything i said, all i care about is how you are wrong about making this statement about me:
That generalisation still doesn't make sense.
When i didnt even make any generalisations rofl, i just find a counter example to show that
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
is indeed false in general.
so yea... can you please please please show which imaginary "generalisation" i made didnt make any sense?
2am typing, used the wrong words. Replace talent with "practice" and passion with "natural talent" (I have no idea how I started using natural talent and passion). You should have been able to get the gist of my argument just from that one example anyway...
Seriously, stop equivocating between a common use of the term "in general" and a maths term which only you and maybe two other people on this forum will think of. It all comes back to iffets' original post, which was clearly using the common definition of the term...
-
lol u STILL avoid answering me becoz u know ur wrong lol pls answer me
all i care about is how you are wrong about making this statement about me:
That generalisation still doesn't make sense.
When i didnt even make any generalisations rofl, i just find a counter example to show that
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
is indeed false in general.
so yea... can you please please please show which imaginary "generalisation" i made didnt make any sense?
-
so yea... can you please please please show which imaginary "generalisation" i made didnt make any sense?
I cannot speak definitely for EZ, but I would suggest that the generalization he spoke of a solid 18 posts ago would be that you used your counterexample to show something "in general", which in any layman's dictionary would count as a generalization.
-
lol u STILL avoid answering me becoz u know ur wrong lol pls answer me
all i care about is how you are wrong about making this statement about me:
That generalisation still doesn't make sense.
When i didnt even make any generalisations rofl, i just find a counter example to show that
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
is indeed false in general.
so yea... can you please please please show which imaginary "generalisation" i made didnt make any sense?
Ok. You say xx in general is false. I interpret that (as most people would) as meaning you are generalizing xx is false. Saying xx is false generally (in normal speak) entails xy to be true by necessity. Xy is not true. Therefore xx cannot true. Yes I know (as I pointed out previously) that there is a bit of a clash of definition, and that your in general is a different, less common usage if the term, hence the confusion. Can you accept that under my set of rules, I am right, now?
Edit: apologies for typos, typing usig iPhone on bed zzz >>
-
hi there, i did not show something "in general" thanks :) please read carefully, i found an EXAMPLE, never did i say anything in general.
All i used was simple logic, nothing MATHEMATICAL, please check the wiki article.
I showed by an example that "practise + talent > practise + no talent" did not always have to hold true.
So if Evagentalionzeta thought that my comment didnt make sense, then i guess he didnt have enough logic, please dont say it doesnt make sense if you didnt have the knowledge to understand it because it did make sense :)
however i never did make any generalisations, i just found an example... so... i still dont understand why ez said "your generalisation still doesnt make sense"
-
hi there, i did not show something "in general" thanks :) please read carefully, i found an EXAMPLE, never did i say anything in general.
I guess it was the part where you said, via your counterexample, that the statement was "false in general" that threw us. *cough*
I showed by an example that "practise + talent > practise + no talent" did not always have to hold true.
This is precisely what EZ and I have been arguing the whole time, it's just that we thought you were making the claim that due to the fact "practice + whatever > donkeys" does not always have to hold true that therefore it generally doesn't hold true (which, as said, you seemed to suggest by saying it was "false in general").
I guess then this has all been a complete misunderstanding and we have in fact been in complete agreement this whole time! Whoopie!
If not, TrueTears, maybe you should just lock this thread already; this issue clearly isn't anywhere near resolution, and the debate itself has almost entirely lost context, and is completely off topic.
-
never did i say anything in general.
i said practise + talent > practise + no talent in general is FALSE i never said the converse holds did i? and i proved that practise + talent > practise + no talent is FALSE in GENERAL by finding a counterexample, a valid method of proof according to discrete mathematics logic. I never went on to prove that practise + no talent > practise + talent in general.
its false in general because we can find a counter example
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
Also, using the mathematical rather than generally-understood meaning of a term in a debate about a non-mathematics-related topic is, frankly, quite silly, IMO.
-
Ninwa, I love you.
-
lol u STILL avoid answering me becoz u know ur wrong lol pls answer me
all i care about is how you are wrong about making this statement about me:
That generalisation still doesn't make sense.
When i didnt even make any generalisations rofl, i just find a counter example to show that
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
is indeed false in general.
so yea... can you please please please show which imaginary "generalisation" i made didnt make any sense?
Ok. You say xx in general is false. I interpret that (as most people would) as meaning you are generalizing xx is false. Saying xx is false generally (in normal speak) entails xy to be true by necessity. Xy is not true. Therefore xx cannot true. Yes I know (as I pointed out previously) that there is a bit of a clash of definition, and that your in general is a different, less common usage if the term, hence the confusion. Can you accept that under my set of rules, I am right, now?
Edit: apologies for typos, typing usig iPhone on bed zzz >>
no i dont care about what you think? coz i never asked for your opinion nor do i care about your set of 'rules'.
i am just saying you saying "my (imaginary) generalisation doesnt make sense" doesnt make sense to YOU because you didnt have the knowledge to interpret it my logical way, not because it doesnt make sense to everyone.
im sure if /0, charlieW and countless others would read it and it would make perfect sense. so yeah if something didnt make sense to you next time, please dont accuse my post of not making sense :)
-
never did i say anything in general.
i said practise + talent > practise + no talent in general is FALSE i never said the converse holds did i? and i proved that practise + talent > practise + no talent is FALSE in GENERAL by finding a counterexample, a valid method of proof according to discrete mathematics logic. I never went on to prove that practise + no talent > practise + talent in general.
its false in general because we can find a counter example
But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.
In general, false.
Also, using the mathematical rather than generally-understood meaning of a term in a debate about a non-mathematics-related topic is, frankly, quite silly, IMO.
sorry i guess you didnt read the wiki article, i never said it was mathematical, its logic.
im sorry nina but you need to touch up on your logics :P my statement of saying iffets statement is false in general is 100% correct under common logic, and there is NO way you can show i am wrong.
-
i am just saying you saying "my (imaginary) generalisation doesnt make sense" doesnt make sense to YOU because you didnt have the knowledge to interpret it my logical way, not because it doesnt make sense to everyone.
im sure if /0, charlieW and countless others would read it and it would make perfect sense. so yeah if something didnt make sense to you next time, please dont accuse my post of not making sense :)
Ahem. Imaginary?
-
sorry i guess you didnt read the wiki article, i never said it was mathematical, its logic.
You don't seem to know much about logic... There are a number of types of logic; syllogistic logic, predicate logic, propositional logic, philosophical logic, modal logic
oh and... mathematical logic. :3
-
sorry i guess you didnt read the wiki article, i never said it was mathematical, its logic.
Um... im sorry but you really dont get it do you? cmon it's easy maths...
We can do this all day, but it's kind of pointless. :P
-
yes imaginary because like EZ said, i said "in general, false" then I moved on to show its "in general, false" by using a counter example, according to the logic stated in the wiki article, i am 100% correct.
so EZ's comment about my post not making sense was wrong because he didnt have enough knowledge to know it would make sense, not because my comment doesnt make sense. so pls dont accuse me of not making sense :D
haha yeah we can do this all day because there's no way any of the statements i made were wrong lol, so next time pls dont accuse my "generalisations" doesnt make sense when it does.
yup i used the word "in general" but are the statements i used "in general" wrong? im sorry but you cant prove im wrong in any way. sorry for dissapointing you nina :D maybe next time you can prove me wrong.
-
You state that your generalisations are "imaginary" because you never made them. I have proven to you that several times, you used the words "in general".
You also state that you never meant it in the mathematical sense (which I have also disproven, but whatever).
Therefore, in the generally understood sense, when you say "in general", you are necessarily making a generalisation.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand on your part. Your denying everything even in the face of clear-cut evidence to the contrary just makes you look silly.
Also, this is getting way off topic and isn't even interesting. Locked.