When I saw the graphs, what I immediately noticed was not how much emphasis parents place on intelligence, but rather how much emphasis they place on conformity. The article talks about both, but it talks more about the former than the latter. But I find the latter a lot more interesting.
Terms like "agreeable", "socially mature", and "well balanced" (versus "attention seeking", presumably a bad thing) can signify that parents place quite a bit of importance on how well their children conform to social norms and expectations. The article mentions bedtime rules, but this can also extend to long-entrenched traditions in "Old World" societies.
On the other hand, the fact that American parents don't use these terms, and instead use terms like "independent" and "rebellious", shows that American culture places a high value on thinking and living outside of the box. The lack of "calm" and "happy" might make life more stressful for parents and children alike, but at the same time, the term "adaptable" implies that Americans expect the world around them to change quickly, and when it does, you gotta change, too. America is newer and changes faster. It's not surprising that Americans value qualities that make people innovative, disruptive, and not bound by any rule that they didn't make by themselves.
As a person who has lived half his life in a society where being "well rounded", conformity, and obedience to authority are considered a child's primary virtues, I must confess that I am rather partial to the "American" style, tradition be damned.
Edit: There also seems to be a relevant difference between Northern/Western Europe and Southern Europe, just as there is a large cultural difference between Northeastern/Western U.S. and the Southeast. So maybe the comparison should be between industrial regions and traditionally agricultural regions, or between relatively secular regions and deeply religions regions, rather than between America and Europe as a whole. Seems obvious in some ways.
> As a person who has lived half his life in a society where being "well rounded", conformity, and obedience to authority are considered a child's primary virtues, I must confess that I am quite partial to the American style, tradition be damned.
My observation is that the value placed on conformity is the US is astounding. Just take a look at the undergrad girls on any university campus. They all look so alike; it is almost as if they were wearing uniform, it's staggering. Also: the importance of "rules".
Compared to most other parts of the world except Northern Europe, I would say that American campuses teem with diversity. I agree with you that there's not enough diversity, but there's still a lot of it.
Just take a look at the undergrads in a Chinese/Japanese/Korean university. It's as if they belonged to some sort of military organization.
The relative ethnic homogeneity in those societies is a factor here, I think. I might be harder for an outsider to appreciate the diversity of what superficially seems to be a very similar group of people.
Teenagers and young adolescents are desperate to fit in everywhere though, I'm not sure I would take that as a sign of the society as a whole. I would want to see how this compares to university outside the US, as well.
I never noticed the overbearing desire to fit in when I was at uni in Britain and Germany.
There is this idea that conformity is valued highly in East Asian cultures, and I have never been there and consequenly can't tell if this is true. But in America there is this talk of freedom, individualism and stuff, and it just simply isn't so.
Clothing choices is one of the least consequential places for there to be a lack of individualism, and I hardly think it's a good proxy for judging how a group values freedom and individualism in areas that matter. I know a lot of people (myself included) whose dress is influenced by prevailing trends, but whose ideas, values, priorities, etc are not (or are to a much lesser degree).
> There is this idea that conformity is valued highly in East Asian cultures, and I have never been there and consequenly can't tell if this is true.
Conformity is highly valued in all human cultures. It's what makes a culture a culture, what stabilizes and maintains it. The difference is more that Americans like to delude themselves with self-aggrandizing rhetoric, but don't have the experience and training to actually put it into practice.
Were you by any chance forced to wear a uniform in high school? I'm wondering if this practice makes people a little more rebellious clothing-wise in university. I'm not sure if it's more prevalent in other countries than the US.
As someone who has lived on both continents myself I find that Americans are more conformist and worried about stepping outside cultural norms than Europeans.
Interesting, I find that social norms in the US are more rigid and Europe seems to be more laid back. (Two examples that come to mind: nudity and the "base" system in dating.)
Sexual norms are not necessarily representative of a society's overall openness to change. My impression is that America (modulo some parts of the South) makes much more fuss celebrating innovation than most of the rest of the world does, and even if this is not a good reflector of the status quo, it certainly has a long-term impact on how people think.
I don't know where you're deriving social norms from conformity. If anything, with Europe being traditionally much more leftist than the U.S. there has been much more conformity of the individual to the state in Europe.
My anecdotal observation is that the reality in US/Can is opposite of the desire. While parents say they value thinking, independence, and rebelliousness, they actually teach a lot of anti-intellectualism and conformity.
Genuine "outside the norm" behaviour is frowned upon and "thinking outside the box" and "rebelliousness" often means denying scientific position on well studied problems.
What you see as expressions of freedom and liberty can just as well mean the polar opposite. Calling somebody "rebellious" means they do not fit in a given system (which is bad if you represent the system concerned), while calling somebody "adaptable" means they will fit in no matter how the system changes; they are, in other words, malleable. In that sense, being independent can also mean the opposite of being socially minded, i.e. being egotistic.
Rebellious, adaptable and individual in a commercial sense might mean somebody resisting the mainstream and innovating. On the other hand, from a systemic point of view, it can denote an egotistical and spineless person that doesn't fit in (which is bad).
Whether the strong focus on individuality, adaptability, rebellion and cognitive advancement is positive or negative will ultimately hinge on your overall image of the wider society creating these values.
I'm not sure about your extrapolation here. For example, labeling a child 'rebellious' isn't necessarily praise, it might just as easily express disappointment with conformist expectations. I have to say I never heard the phrase 'oppositional defiance disorder' until I came to the US. In Europe people would just regard such kids as stubborn, but not necessarily assume it was the result of a pathology.
Isn't it more likely that these descriptions are what the parents want to see in their children? As for 'rebellious', I see that as more of a humble-brag. "Oh, he's so rebellious, hehe". My takeaway from the data is these are the qualities that the parents in the respective countries hope their children possess, or perhaps that they've instilled in them...since in any meaningful sense most young children would be fairly similar across cultures, the differences the researchers perceived in the parents' answers must have been biases from the parents themselves.
Or I could say that you see at as not positive because you don't think it is. My point though was that, in my opinion, from my experience, people describe their children how they want to see them, or in their version of positive ways whatever those may be for each person (I'm thinking of young children here mostly). I mean can a 2 or 3 year old really be more "happy" or "rebellious" in any meaningful different degree from any other child of same age, in the aggregate? It's projection.. That's what I'm getting at.
Maybe this explains a strange situation. Europe is bigger than the US, is well educated, free and prosperous. You would think that more technological innovation would come from Europe, or at least it would be on par, but that is far from the case. There have been several articles on this lately but none seem to have an answer.
I had a quick google for some data and the best measure I could find was this[1], which places the US on a similar level to the European/Scandinavian countries with strong economies.
I really wish there was actual competition to the US but there is not. I can make an argument and cite findings that show that China is more free than Europe but it is still patently false. What is the EU equivalent of NASA, Apple, Google, SpaceX etc. Competition is good for all, pretending is not.
No, you gave a list consisting of: one huge government agency (there's ESA, and pretty much every EU nation has some king of space exploration agency), one giant hardware corporation which made tons of money doing incremental improvement on others' inventions, a giant software company milking a single innovation to build an effective monopoly, and a private space research company.
It's a vast difference between "technology innovator" and "a successful international corporation built on technology innovations", and Europe has a ton of the former. For every Tesla there's a Rimac Automobili, for every SpaceX there's a Hipersfera -- and that's just from a small country on the edge of EU. I'm sure others could come up with better results from elsewhere.
Putting your kids on a schedule is probably the best thing you can do as a parent to ensure your sanity and to keep your kids happy. Kids really do like repetitive behavior, and a good schedule is one of those[1].
There are few things that help you cope with those really challenging parenting days like knowing your kids are going to be in bed at 8pm, with 30 minutes of relaxing parent/child time before that. Knowing you get a break is immensely empowering.
I cringe for the kids when I see them walking around the grocery store with their parents at 11pm. It doesn't surprise me that so many kids are unable to concentrate[2] when they are sleep deprived, overly stimulated, and jacked up on sugar (Lucky Charms is 40% sugar. Baby formula has more sugar than Coke.).
All that said, my kids are smart. ;) But what really excites me about my kids is watching them find and explore their interests. The word I would use to describe them is "unique".
1. Sorry, no academic research to back it up. Lots of anecdotal experience from my own kids and those of others who have come to my wife and I for advice. Also, just look at how many times a kid can watch the same movie over and over again. :)
2. My wife works as a pediatric nurse. I have no doubt there are many kids (and adults for that matter) who are wired very differently and need help to fit into society's notion of how a kid should behave. I also think that we are doing massive damage to kids by all the sugar we feed them, especially in liquid form, whether it's milkshake formula or Mountain Dew, and that damage is showing up as a slew of problems, from obesity and Type II diabetes to cognitive issues. However, those are going to be exceedingly difficult to prove, and powerful interests (from the USDA to food producers) will do everything they can to distract people from proving it.
It's kind of funny that there is the whole formula-vs-breast-milk debate. Especially since there are so many people that have this odd notion that formula is safer than breast milk (some even thinking that breast milk is detrimental to a child's health -- e.g. "Your child will die or have defects if you feed it breast milk").
The truth is that formula is useful as a substitute for breast milk, but it's not a complete substitute. We should probably be leaning towards breast milk unless there is a reason not to.
We should probably rid ourselves of notions like:
* Formula is obviously better than breast milk because... science!
* Feeding your baby formula is a sign of wealth (much like wet-nurses in the past) because only poor people that can't afford formula breast-feed (i.e. breast milk is 'free' therefore obviously isn't as good).
* Breast-feeding is harmful to children because seeing a breast will scar them for life.
I believe the first two were injected into our culture through a lot of marketing dollars paid by the companies selling formula. I find it odd that people could believe food companies could do better in 40 years than nature did in millions of years of evolution or God did in designing people (take your pick, breast milk still seems arguably better).
One of my kids was raised on formula, the others had it to augment breast milk. I don't think there is anything wrong with using formula, but I do think the majority of the inexpensive formula out there isn't much different that giving your baby liquified lucky charms.
Of course it does--milk has a lot of sugar in it. Breastmilk is about 7.1 g/100ml (all lactose), and good infant formula is about the same. Coke is 10.2 g/100 ml (fructose and sucrose). Some infant formulas do have added sucrose.
The problem is the types of sugars (and I should have been more specific about that wrt formula). Infant formulas are loaded with fructose, through HFCS, corn syrup, corn syrup solids, and table sugar[1]. As you point out, those sugars do not exist in breast milk. Give the very different metabolic path fructose takes, and the load it places on the liver, combined with the trend towards obese six month olds, I would say those formulas aren't doing good things to our kids.
My kids are way past breast feeding/formula stage, but if they weren't, I would certainly be watching very closely what ingredients were in the formula if my wife chose not to or couldn't breast feed. I'm sure there are good formulas if you dig a little.
Formula fed kids can get fat because there is no limit on consumption, whereas breastmilk is limited to mother's supply.
By far the worst problem with HFCS is that it is pumped into foods that shouldn't have any added sugar at all, like breads, and marinades, and water, and all that junk sold in boxes at supermarkets. Being different from lactose isn't anywhere near as significant.
And the economic/agricultural issues around HFCS are problematic-- not a nutrition issue.
As somebody who has done a lot of research and decided the evidence overwhelmingly shows how bad excessive, simple carbohydrates are for you, I completely agree with your statement about sugar being added to everything. It is frustrating to not be able to buy meat without worrying about sugar.
As far as your comment about HFCS not being different, I respectfully disagree. I don't think HFCS is markedly different than, say, table sugar: both are about 50% glucose and 50% fructose. But fructose is processed differently, and the increased burden that places on the liver causes a whole host of problems, not just obesity. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is now a common disease, and that is the effect of all the fructose being dumped on us.
So, yes, HFCS is a nutritional issue, as well as a political and agricultural issue, but certainly not because it's "unnatural" but because the thing that gives it it's sweetness (without a shell of fiber around it) is toxic to our bodies when consumed in large quantities over a long period of time.
One question to ponder: if there was not sone fundamental difference in nutrition, why would babies gorge themselves to obesity on it? Milk production follows baby's demand, as any mother can tell you during a child's growth spurt. If the baby wanted to eat more, the mother would produce it. But they don't. Instead, something fundamental is different.
I believe it is the type of sugar and I believe the evidence backs that up. But I also think a lot more research needs to be conducted, because the evidence isn't iron-clad.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the studies in nutrition for the last 30-40 years have done little more than massage results to fit the prevailing politics (aka what the government will fund). Nutritional "science"[1] is badly broken, and it takes looking deeper into the biochemistry to start getting clues about what is bad for us and what isn't.
1. My latest favorite is the "top-baldness raises your risk of heart disease". These kinds of "results" are claimed all of the time, with little apparent thought to "is it causal or does something else cause top-baldness and heart disease?
A fantastic example of horrible information visualization. Those bar charts are almost useless. The colors don't seem to correspond to anything, the ranking is apparently random, and the x-axis scale varies wildly, making cross-country comparisons an exercise in mental arithmetic.
I came here to say exactly that. They make a point of using the same colors in each chart (mostly), giving the illusion of some correspondence, but the colors mean something different for each chart. For example, "Difficult" and "Agreeable" are the same color in the first two charts.
From what I remember from my childhood in the UK, I'd say that Britain is very close to America. Everyone focussed on "intellect" there, and my friends there broadly use the American strategies (hyper + TV).
I've noticed the difference in The Netherlands. My wife was just this afternoon planning the bedtime rooster for our first child (due in September!). I put it down to her Dutch tick for planning/organization.
What is true is that the maternity/paternity system here is awesome: it's like society has accepted that yes, people do have kids. And, if we all want to keep working (and share the job of raising the nippers), then we need to make some pragmatic decisions. Like be flexible with work time, and have subsidised childcare.
After living in both countries my whole life, as a Brit, I can honestly say that Britain is not very close to America at all. Maybe on the surface, the popular culture (mostly because of Hollywood & TV) and the language are similar, but that's about where the main similarities end, and the subtitles begin.
What George Bernard Shaw said was true. England and America are two countries separated by a common language.
Because i'm not eloquent or articulate, I'll refer you to my favourite travel writer - Mr. Bill Bryson. He's lived in both countries his whole life and has made a living writing about the (mostly funny) subcultures of each.
I recommend starting with "Notes from a small island".
Upon first review it was quite interesting to compare how countries perceive themselves, but when trying to compare countries to each other I realized that the x-axis and y-axis are different for each country.
For example the first quote says "A fascinating new study reveals that Americans are more likely to call their children 'intelligent'", but in fact a higher percentage of parents in Australia say their children are more intelligent.
Parents in Spain think their kids are really really easy.
I always wonder how much of the attitude measured among modern parents in the U.S. is due to the number of people who have an only child, and do so later in life.
When you have more than one child, I think you're more realistic about their personalities and capabilities, because you can compare them. When you have just one, everything they do is extraordinary. When you have more, you see them more as a bunch of morons who get things right occasionally through random chance.
Not to mention, since we in the U.S. don't typically have large broods, most people have very little experience with children at all and are shocked at what they are capable of, because it doesn't really fit with the preconceived notion of what a "child" is.
Is there a relationship between the colors on the graphs? Every graph has different value scale. Hard to compare values between graphs, which is the whole point of the article.
Fascinating narrative but was this a true "research study" in which hundreds or thousands of families were given the same questions? I can't find it in the study text, which reads more like a book chapter than a study. I can't find it in the article, nor do I see it in the Slate interview.
Can anyone else find the actual text that says, "We surveyed this many families and asked them these specific questions"?
It reads like a book chapter because it is a book chapter:
"Themes and Variations: Parental Ethnotheories in Western Cultures ... to appear in: Rubin, K. (Ed.), Parental beliefs, parenting, and child development in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Psychology Press."
I don't see anything about controlling for variables, experiment design, confidence intervals etc. This is an ethnographic study, not a random survey. Don't treat it like one.
A lot of American parents I meet go on and on about how smart and fantastic their children are. They even have bumper stickers announcing that their offspring are honor students at some school. I never hear about how they are well adjusted and happy.
Terms like "agreeable", "socially mature", and "well balanced" (versus "attention seeking", presumably a bad thing) can signify that parents place quite a bit of importance on how well their children conform to social norms and expectations. The article mentions bedtime rules, but this can also extend to long-entrenched traditions in "Old World" societies.
On the other hand, the fact that American parents don't use these terms, and instead use terms like "independent" and "rebellious", shows that American culture places a high value on thinking and living outside of the box. The lack of "calm" and "happy" might make life more stressful for parents and children alike, but at the same time, the term "adaptable" implies that Americans expect the world around them to change quickly, and when it does, you gotta change, too. America is newer and changes faster. It's not surprising that Americans value qualities that make people innovative, disruptive, and not bound by any rule that they didn't make by themselves.
As a person who has lived half his life in a society where being "well rounded", conformity, and obedience to authority are considered a child's primary virtues, I must confess that I am rather partial to the "American" style, tradition be damned.
Edit: There also seems to be a relevant difference between Northern/Western Europe and Southern Europe, just as there is a large cultural difference between Northeastern/Western U.S. and the Southeast. So maybe the comparison should be between industrial regions and traditionally agricultural regions, or between relatively secular regions and deeply religions regions, rather than between America and Europe as a whole. Seems obvious in some ways.