Still probably quite different, but maybe more similar than looking at Chinese emigrés vs typical "US average".
Immigrant parents (Asian, Latino, Eastern European, African) in America will push their kids harder because when you're an immigrant, a mistake like getting suspended in school or a DUI can destroy any chance at naturalization because you need to establish "Good Moral Character" [0] which is largely at the discretion of the presiding interviewer and a backlogged USCIS Immigration Judge
[0] - https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-d-chapter...
Not saying either of these options is wrong, and even hinting that the former may perform comparatively better in real life than their test scores suggest. After all, their ancestors survived.
> a family history of 50 generations of tending to a rice field?
While yes, I am sure that there are many peasant people who have a "don't rock the boat" mindset, this is totally ignorant to the fact that China in the last two centuries alone was:
Invaded by Japan, invaded by every European colonial power, had a communist revolution, underwent massive industrialization, had the cultural revolution (that sort of kills the "docile student" narrative by itself), had multiple civil wars, fought in the Korean and Vietnam wars, fought against Russia, and recently in the last 40 years has opened up to international trade and market economies.
Compare the life stories of Donald Trump and Xi Xinping. Which of the two seems more adventurous? I'm not even trying to say one culture is better or worse, I am just trying to point out that your historical synopsis is not accurate and is really oversimplifying things.
I still don't even think that this is a super useful model because it is also reductive. But my point is just that you shouldn't paint broad brush strokes with bad history to find a reason for something. It's actually counter-productive. You can find post-hoc rationalization for anything. It doesn't make you right.
It is about personal traits after all. The question is, what personal trait remains constant under the change?
As you can see from the above: Chinese and American students reacted very differently to a change (a difficult study exercise).
In principle this contradicts your claim that Americans embrace any change - not at all.
Why different groups of people react differently to the change applied to them? It can be that they have different cultural memory about what is the outcome of a personal stand.
> As you can see from the above: Chinese and American students reacted very differently to a change (a difficult study exercise).
This is one framing. Another framing is that they have deference to authority. My hypothesis from the last post is not testable, it's just a narrative. It's not true. That was my point. You can frame history in whatever narrative makes you feel good but it's not scientific or true.
> Why different groups of people react differently to the change applied to them? It can be that they have different cultural memory about what is the outcome of a personal stand.
Your average Chinese student is more likely to have immediate family members who participated in revolutionary activity than just "being rice farmers". Whereas your average American is not very likely to have ancestors who participated in revolutionary activity (much less cowboys or adventurers). I am trying to illustrate that your initial assumption (Americans are always pushing boundaries, and the Chinese just live quiet lives) is totally inaccurate when taking into account which of the two countries has had more instability over the last two centuries. So in the "cultural memory" wouldn't Americans be the ones who are used to peaceful and stable lives?
Your point fails on another level, which is that both the rice farmer and cowboy example are stereotypes that serve to find an example without any serious analysis. It's a nice hand-wavy explanation that doesn't pass a quick smell test an also doesn't encourage the people who buy into the explanation to investigate any further.
I am saying that just because this explanation makes sense to you doesn't mean that it is correct.
I think you are misinterpreting the situation.
I didn't come up with this rice farmer and cowboy example and I do not advocate for it as it is a complete nonsense. Cowboys aka cow herders were just one very limited part of the American society, it misses everybody else who were free in their lives.
Chinese communist regime (as it has been with all communist regimes) first deceived the population with good sounding promises and then created another oppressive regime. Chinese peasants didn't push personal boundaries, it was a collective action where they stepped right into one of the biggest blunders of the century that led to the death of tens of millions people (close to 100 million). "Cultural" revolution displayed to them that they have to learn to walk on the rope or else. They went from one serfdom right into another one.
What you have constructed here is called a straw man argument.
Sorry my bad, I thought you were the same person as the original commenter I was replying to.
Revolution is when you are told you have much meaner boss from now on, and one who requires active loyalty signalling. So you comply. Or remove yourself from the gene pool.
As in, neither is accurate characterisation of stuff that happened in the past or culture of a place right now.
Letting teens run wild for whatever reason (because they will be more interesting adults? because they have a right to?) is a western idea. That’s exactly how I grew up and have a lot of tales to tell, but I also underutilized my capacity for learning during that time.
> because they will be more interesting adults? because they have a right to?
That's just belittling and avoiding the serious issues. Very teenager-like! :)
First, nobody said healthy teens can't study. But it's essential they question and push back against what they study. If they don't learn that, their education has failed on a basic level - that is where all that knowledge came from; that's what will prepare them to be adults who can utilize and produce knowledge themselves, rather than relying on others. What more is the source of SV - or the entire scientific and business enterprises - than those skills.
Also, there is far more to learn than schoolwork for growing into fully self-actualized, mature, free people in a free society. Most critically, the most important knowledge is self-knowledge, and that is not learned by studying authorites, but mostly by experimenting and studying yourself.
> I also underutilized my capacity for learning during that time
None of us know what would happen on the road not taken. You wouldn't be the same person. For one thing, it's not realistic to compare anyone to some image of perfection and then say they could have done better.
Yes... what a ridiculous rhetorical question, with all due respect.
There is a thread of democratic myth that has been abused into dust that holds that there is high virtue in being disobedient and non-compliant. But the heart of that myth is always centered in somehwat rare (in the context of today) totalitarianism or "dark age" mythological social ignorance.
When in reality the key to both learning and life success, translating to happiness, is obedience and compliance with things that are mostly good and mostly true. Whereas predators, of all kinds, often rely on peddling untruths to the reflexively disobedient.
There are exceptions, but the lesson is that they are far from the rule.
I am not sure when being "Rebellious/Undisciplined/Bad-behaviour" became equated with "Independent-minded" and thus ipso facto "better than" being "Obedient/Disciplined".
By definition, youngsters have a lot to learn which can only happen in a obedient and disciplined environment.
By what definition?
Age and therefore lack of Knowledge/Experience.
First, they are human institutions and will be corrupt to varying degrees (though that degree matters greatly); teenagers should learn and all adults should know that the feet of these monuments are clay, and that we can build better - especially the next generation, with a fresh perspective, less vested interest, and more energy.
Second, what almost defines today, this moment in history, is the rise of authoritarian oppression and the embrace of it (which I believe includes the comment above, though not necessarily the commenter), and the culture of abuse of authority and brazen embrace of it - in political leaders, business leaders, etc. These things, far from being obsolete concerns, are now a cult - rather than freedom and hope for all, people embrace hate, cruelty, corruption, and dictators.
Look at our world, look what we are building, look at the catastrophe the institutions have produced and the brazen disregard shown by a generation of adults.
Finally, our world was built by people who disrepected authority; authority is those who did so and succeeded. That's where almost every democracy and all our freedoms came from.
> ridiculous ... dust
Rather than disrespecting authority, your comment disrespects your peers and try to abuse them, through contempt and ridicule, into complying with the authority. The comment sounds to me like the person who, threatened with the power of a bully, goes along with them, tries to fit into their power structure, and ingratiates themselves by attacking peers who don't conform.
As an American who's taught both native born American students and recent Chinese immigrants, I confirm this is true, much to the embarrassment of my national pride.