《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》2011年1月17號(hào)

中國(guó)虎媽蔡美兒是個(gè)軟蛋

David Brooks

上周初，一大批受過(guò)教育的人認(rèn)定蔡美兒是在找美國(guó)社會(huì)的麻煩。如你所知，蔡是一位耶魯大學(xué)教授，她發(fā)表評(píng)論批評(píng)美國(guó)懦弱、溺愛式的家庭教育。

蔡沒讓她自己的女兒外出玩?；蛄羲蓿瑳]讓她們看電視、玩視頻游戲、或參加像手工一類的垃圾活動(dòng)。有一次數(shù)學(xué)競(jìng)賽女兒拿了第二，排在一個(gè)韓國(guó)孩子后面，就逼著女兒每晚做2,000道數(shù)學(xué)題直到她拿回了第一。一次，女兒給她的生日賀卡質(zhì)量欠佳，蔡拒絕接受，要求女兒重做新卡。又一次，她威脅燒掉女兒所有的玩具動(dòng)物，除非她出色地彈好一段樂(lè)曲。

結(jié)果，蔡的兩個(gè)女兒得全A，贏得了一連串的音樂(lè)比賽。

在她的《虎媽的戰(zhàn)斗頌歌》書中，蔡猛烈抨擊美國(guó)式家教，盡管她也自嘲自己極端的“中國(guó)”方式。她說(shuō)美國(guó)家長(zhǎng)缺乏權(quán)威，教育出自以為是、沒有被強(qiáng)迫發(fā)揮潛能的孩子。

我的電子收件箱上周就收滿了激烈的譴責(zé)信。蔡抓住了好多人對(duì)美國(guó)衰落的恐慌心理，瞧這個(gè)如此用功的中國(guó)人家長(zhǎng)（順便說(shuō)一句，還有10億多個(gè)她），她的孩子將徹底打敗我們。實(shí)際上，（蔡不會(huì)同意我）她并不反對(duì)美國(guó)式家教，她是流行的精英式家教的邏輯延伸。她的做法就是美國(guó)中上階層父母高壓式的做法，稱得上死心塌地的榜樣。

批評(píng)她的聲音有點(diǎn)老生常談，如說(shuō)她的孩子不可能幸?；蛴袆?chuàng)造性，她們會(huì)成長(zhǎng)為有技能、聽話的孩子，但沒有成就大業(yè)的膽量，她在摧毀她們對(duì)音樂(lè)的熱愛，在15至24歲的亞裔婦女自殺率這么高肯定有原因等。

我對(duì)蔡的看法恰恰相反，我認(rèn)為她在溺愛孩子。她不讓孩子參與對(duì)智力要求更苛刻的活動(dòng)，因?yàn)樗欢裁词呛褪裁床皇牵ㄖ橇ι系模┱J(rèn)知困難。

練四個(gè)小時(shí)的音樂(lè)需要集中注意力，在認(rèn)知要求方面卻遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不及與其他14歲女孩一起過(guò)夜。處理孩子間攀比、不斷搞好關(guān)系、認(rèn)識(shí)社會(huì)規(guī)范、游刃自我與群體之間的區(qū)別——所有這些以及其他社會(huì)實(shí)踐，對(duì)認(rèn)知方面的要求遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)了任何一節(jié)緊張的耶魯輔導(dǎo)課。

熟練掌握這些艱巨的技能一直是成功的最關(guān)鍵。我們大多數(shù)人與別人一起工作，一起工作比分開單干更能有效地解決問(wèn)題（與單項(xiàng)賽相比，游泳選手在接力賽時(shí)往往互相鼓勁而發(fā)揮得更好）。此外，群體的表現(xiàn)與該群體的平均智商沒有聯(lián)系，甚至與群體內(nèi)最聰明的成員的智商也無(wú)關(guān)。

麻省理工學(xué)院和卡耐基梅隆大學(xué)的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，集體認(rèn)知表現(xiàn)好的群體是成員善于閱讀別人的情緒——表現(xiàn)在輪流發(fā)言、流暢地處理各人的意見、善于發(fā)覺彼此的意向和長(zhǎng)處。

加入一個(gè)運(yùn)作良好的團(tuán)體很難，這需要你有如下能力，即信任你的親屬圈子以外的人、會(huì)閱讀人的語(yǔ)調(diào)和情緒、了解各人帶進(jìn)同一個(gè)房間的心理因素是否合拍。

這組技能學(xué)校是不教的，只能從艱苦的經(jīng)歷中獲取。這正是蔡保護(hù)她的孩子，就知道趕緊讓她們回家做作業(yè)，而不讓她們參與的艱苦實(shí)踐。

如把課堂學(xué)習(xí)看作是童年艱辛考驗(yàn)的一個(gè)課間休息，蔡會(huì)做的更好。她的女兒們從哪兒學(xué)習(xí)如何處世？她們從哪兒學(xué)習(xí)使用和應(yīng)對(duì)隱喻？她們從哪兒學(xué)習(xí)像一個(gè)獵人觀察地形一樣地察言觀色？她們從哪兒學(xué)習(xí)如何檢測(cè)自己的缺點(diǎn)？她們從哪兒學(xué)習(xí)如何理解別人的心靈并預(yù)測(cè)別人的反應(yīng)？

這些和其他的無(wú)數(shù)技能只有從非正規(guī)的成長(zhǎng)過(guò)程中獲取，如用正規(guī)學(xué)習(xí)壟斷一個(gè)孩子的時(shí)間，他們就發(fā)育不全。

因此我并不反對(duì)蔡對(duì)兩個(gè)女兒的嚴(yán)教方式，我也真心喜歡她勇敢、發(fā)人深省的書，寫得比評(píng)論所說(shuō)的更優(yōu)雅。我只是希望她（的家教）沒有如此軟弱、放縱，并希望她認(rèn)識(shí)到，在對(duì)智力要求的某些方面，學(xué)校的食堂比圖書館更能鍛煉孩子。同時(shí)，我希望她女兒長(zhǎng)大后也寫書，學(xué)會(huì)各種技能，更好地預(yù)測(cè)別人會(huì)如何評(píng)價(jià)她們的書。

http://www./2011/01/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

January 17, 2011

Amy Chua Is a Wimp

By DAVID BROOKS

 

Sometime early last week, a large slice of educated America decided that Amy Chua is a menace to society. Chua, as you probably know, is the Yale professor who has written a bracing critique of what she considers the weak, cuddling American parenting style.

Chua didn’t let her own girls go out on play dates or sleepovers. She didn’t let them watch TV or play video games or take part in garbage activities like crafts. Once, one of her daughters came in second to a Korean kid in a math competition, so Chua made the girl do 2,000 math problems a night until she regained her supremacy. Once, her daughters gave her birthday cards of insufficient quality. Chua rejected them and demanded new cards. Once, she threatened to burn all of one of her daughter’s stuffed animals unless she played a piece of music perfectly.

As a result, Chua’s daughters get straight As and have won a series of musical competitions.

In her book, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” Chua delivers a broadside against American parenting even as she mocks herself for her own extreme “Chinese” style. She says American parents lack authority and produce entitled children who aren’t forced to live up to their abilities.

The furious denunciations began flooding my in-box a week ago. Chua plays into America’s fear of national decline. Here’s a Chinese parent working really hard (and, by the way, there are a billion more of her) and her kids are going to crush ours. Furthermore (and this Chua doesn’t appreciate), she is not really rebelling against American-style parenting; she is the logical extension of the prevailing elite practices. She does everything over-pressuring upper-_middle-class parents are doing. She’s just hard core.

Her critics echoed the familiar themes. Her kids can’t possibly be happy or truly creative. They’ll grow up skilled and compliant but without the audacity to be great. She’s destroying their love for music. There’s a reason Asian-American women between the ages of 15 and 24 have such high suicide rates.

I have the opposite problem with Chua. I believe she’s coddling her children. She’s protecting them from the most intellectually demanding activities because she doesn’t understand what’s cognitively difficult and what isn’t.

Practicing a piece of music for four hours requires focused attention, but it is nowhere near as cognitively demanding as a sleepover with 14-year-old girls. Managing status rivalries, negotiating group dynamics, understanding social norms, navigating the distinction between self and group — these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense

tutoring session or a class at Yale.

Yet _mastering these arduous skills is at the very essence of achievement. Most people work in groups. We do this because groups are much more efficient at solving problems than individuals (swimmers are often motivated to have their best times as part of relay teams, not in individual events). Moreover, the performance of a group does not correlate well with the average I.Q. of the group or even with the I.Q.’s of the smartest members.

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon have found that groups have a high collective intelligence when members of a group are good at reading each others’ emotions — when they take turns speaking, when the inputs from each member are managed fluidly, when they detect each others’ inclinations and strengths.

Participating in a well-functioning group is really hard. It requires the ability to trust people outside your kinship circle, read intonations and moods, understand how the psychological pieces each person brings to the room can and cannot fit together.

This skill set is not taught formally, but it is imparted through arduous experiences. These are exactly the kinds of difficult experiences Chua shelters her children from by making them rush home to hit the homework table.

Chua would do better to see the classroom as a cognitive break from the truly arduous tests of childhood. Where do they learn how to manage people? Where do they learn to construct and manipulate metaphors? Where do they learn to perceive details of a scene the way a hunter reads a landscape? Where do they learn how to detect their own shortcomings? Where do they learn how to put themselves in others’ minds and anticipate others’ reactions?

These and a million other skills are imparted by the informal maturity process and are not developed if formal learning monopolizes a child’s time.

So I’m not against the way Chua pushes her daughters. And I loved her book as a courageous and thought-provoking read. It’s also more supple than her critics let on. I just wish she wasn’t so soft and indulgent. I wish she recognized that in some important ways the school cafeteria is more intellectually demanding than the library. And I hope her daughters grow up to write their own books, and maybe learn the skills to better anticipate how theirs will be received.

 

復(fù)制自上海大學(xué)校務(wù)論壇匯總（2011-01-20）