Child Rearing and Choice

There seems to be a lot of buzz surrounding Amy Chau's new book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mom. Why the attention? A snippet was published in the Wall Street Journal this past weekend, outlining Chau's philosophy on child-rearing. Without going into the merits of her philosophy, I think Chau's piece illustrates the point that Iyengar made in The Art of Choosing about cultural norms and choice. For instance, Chau explains:

Second, Chinese parents believe that their kids owe them everything. The reason for this is a little unclear, but it's probably a combination of Confucian filial piety and the fact that the parents have sacrificed and done so much for their children... Anyway, the understanding is that Chinese children must spend their lives repaying their parents by obeying them and making them proud.

Third, Chinese parents believe that they know what is best for their children and therefore override all of their children's own desires and preferences... Don't get me wrong: It's not that Chinese parents don't care about their children. Just the opposite. They would give up anything for their children. It's just an entirely different parenting model.

Clearly, Chau's beliefs stem from growing up as the daughter of Asian parents, who (as described in Iyengar's framework) likely subscribed to a collectivist belief system, in which:

The assumption is that your parents, and elders in general, will show you the right way to live your life so that you will be protected from making a costly mistake. There are "right" choices and "wrong" ones, and by following your elders, you will learn to choose correctly, even relinquishing choice when appropriate.

What I'm more curious about, though, is what (twenty years from now) Chau's children will think of their mother's methods. I think it's an interesting area of research: what is the effect on children of immigrant parents (who identify with collectivist cultures) but are raised in an individualist society?

A quick Google search led to a Q&A with Iyengar, in which she tangentially addresses that question:

Q: Can these two narratives about different ways to live one’s life run in parallel? Or is conflict inevitable?

A: No, they run up against each other, and you have to find some form of reconciliation. That’s why the narrative feeling becomes so salient to a bicultural person, because this conflict must be resolved. Some choose one or the other narrative, and some choose different narratives for different domains, and some create a new narrative for themselves. There is no one optimal path here. You have to judge if there’s a fit between the person’s narrative and the choices they ultimately make -- if there’s a fit, it’ll help them accomplish their goals. So the only way you can judge this narrative is through its functionality.

I could keep going on Iyengar (she makes decisions based on a ''committee of experts'' of coworkers, friends, etc.!), but I suspect my admiration is a little embarrassingly girl-crushy as it is.

The Best Books of 2010

It seems appropriate to end this year with some sort of list. Isn't that what people do? Top ten movies of the year! Ten ten celebrity scandals of the year! Top ten Wikileaks of the year!

Well, without further ado, here's my add to the end-of-the-year fray:

Rina's Favorite Books of the Year

1) Extremely Close and Incredibly Loud by Jonathan Safran Foer: I started 2010 off with an amazing read, and I'd still happily recommend it. A friend once commented that he was hesitant to read Foer because of his pop-celebrity: don't let it deter you.

2) Let the Great World Spin by Colum McMann: The only one on this list that I haven't previously quoted: I wanted to, but I simply couldn't find a passage that encapsulated everything that I loved about the novel. A beautiful tribute to a New York past and, in its own way, a New York present.

3) On Chesil Beach by Ian McEwan: Although I'm particularly partial to McEwan, this was absolutely riveting. A couple falls in - and out - of love. Tragedy from misunderstandings.

4) Tales of the City trilogy by Armistead Maupin: After hearing a friend rave about this series for over a year, I finally picked up Maupin's trilogy. It's set in 1970s San Francisco, and while I've had the pleasure of visiting the city on multiple occasions, it made me think about the city's role in transforming cultural norms and the counterculture movement. Also: a really great, (sometimes trashy) scandal filled trilogy!

5) The Art of Choosing by Sheena Iyengar: As I noted in my original post, Dr. Iyengar's book is a fascinating look into how individuals make choices, taking into account factors like cultural factors or cognitive biases. It was a little tedious at times, but four months later, I still find myself re-reading - and quoting - her passages on individualist versus collectivist societies. I rarely read non-fiction, but I would happily pass this on.

Happy holidays! xo

How We Choose

This is a long one. Inspired by citations in Blink, I decided to pick up Sheena Iyengar's The Art of Choosing. Dr. Iyengar's book explores different facets of how we make decisions, such as cognitive biases and the effect of priming. Although I thought it was a little tedious at times, for the most part, it provided several interesting studies on how humans react to a lack -- or abundance -- of choice. (I don't think I'm ever going to be able to walk into a supermarket without thinking about her famous jam study.)


What I found most interesting, though, was her examination on how a person's cultural background influences his or her decision-making processes. She begins by distinguishing between individualist and collectivist societies, and reading her two definitions made me reflect how each society has shaped my own decision making process.


"From early on, members of individualist societies are taught the special importance of personal choice. Even a walk through the local grocery store becomes an opportunity to teach lessons about choosing, particularly in the United States, where stores routinely offer hundreds of options. As soon as children can talk, or perhaps as soon as they can accurately point, they are asked, "Which one of these would you like?" A parent would probably narrow down the number of choices and explain the differences between this cereal and that one, or that toy and this one, but the child would be encouraged to express a preference. After a while, the child would graduate to making tougher choices, and by the ripe old age of four, he may well be expected to both understand and respond to the daunting question, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" From this children learn that they should be able to figure out what they like and dislike, what will make them happy and what won't. Because their happiness is on the line, their own opinions truly matter, and they must figure out how to judge the outcomes of their choices.


By contrast, members of collectivist societies place greater emphasis on duty. Children are often told, "If you're a good child, you'll do what your parents tell you," and the parents need not explain themselves. From what you eat to what you wear, the toys you play with to what you study, it is what you're supposed to do that's most important. As you grow older, instead of being asked what you want, you may be asked, "How will you take care of your parents' needs and wants? How will you make them proud?" The assumption is that your parents, and elders in general, will show you the right way to live your life so that you will be protected from making a costly mistake. There are "right" choices and "wrong" ones, and by following your elders, you will learn to choose correctly, even relinquishing choice when appropriate."