allomancersam's review
3.0
Another school book. Much more interesting than the last one. Probably about 3.5-3.75/5 stars overall.
jamread2021's review
3.0
Interesting analysis of the attitudes and behaviors of successful ethnic groups. Although I am not sure I agree with the conclusions, the research and anecdotal evidence were thought-provoking. The ideas proposed are worth a discussion and, if accurate, offer a jumping off place for individuals/groups to turn around unfortunate circumstances.
anzomar's review
3.0
I recognized Amy Chua’s name not only from her fame as a “Tiger Mom”, but also the subsequent, unwarrantedly aggressive attack on her character (by the press and public alike) for her parenting style. The trend of demonizing Chua without really listening to what she has to say seems to continue in many reactions to this book. Reviewers and readers have said that it’s racist, justifies stereotypes, problematic, or quickly dismiss these ideas based on personal experience and opinions. And I simply don't agree.
I don’t know if I completely subscribe to everything Chua and Rubenfeld suggest but their thesis was both well researched and thoroughly backed up. Any conversation about who's succeeding in America, especially one that analyzes minority/religious groups, is bound to make people uncomfortable -- that doesn’t mean it’s a dialogue that shouldn’t be had.
I give this book 3.5 stars not because I think it’s racist, but more because I don’t think it does anything especially new or profound. The reasoning is there, but it's reasoning that is already established, at least subconsciously, in a lot of people. The idea that those who succeed are the ones who believe in themselves, have something to prove, and are able to dedicate themselves, is not really a new one. (This is a simplistic summary of an obviously more complex thesis). What Chua and Rubenfeld do in “The Triple Package” is provide valuable data, statistics, and explore specific examples -- I found the ones on Cuban-Americans and the differences between Nigerians and African-Americans in the American university system to be especially poignant and interesting.
I don’t know if I completely subscribe to everything Chua and Rubenfeld suggest but their thesis was both well researched and thoroughly backed up. Any conversation about who's succeeding in America, especially one that analyzes minority/religious groups, is bound to make people uncomfortable -- that doesn’t mean it’s a dialogue that shouldn’t be had.
I give this book 3.5 stars not because I think it’s racist, but more because I don’t think it does anything especially new or profound. The reasoning is there, but it's reasoning that is already established, at least subconsciously, in a lot of people. The idea that those who succeed are the ones who believe in themselves, have something to prove, and are able to dedicate themselves, is not really a new one. (This is a simplistic summary of an obviously more complex thesis). What Chua and Rubenfeld do in “The Triple Package” is provide valuable data, statistics, and explore specific examples -- I found the ones on Cuban-Americans and the differences between Nigerians and African-Americans in the American university system to be especially poignant and interesting.
laurenemilys's review
2.0
Not as good as Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother; not interesting or academically outstanding; skewed towards the cultural groups of the two authors
matttrevithick's review
4.0
Always enjoy Amy Chua, and this book is no exception. Takes a dispassionate stance on the driving forces behind successful immigrant groups in the US and is very readable. Discipline, insecurity, and a superiority complex - mixed with a burning drive - is everything, she persuasively argues.
sakusha's review
5.0
I loved the book. It was objective, compelling, interesting, and easy to read.
Argues that three traits make people succeed (8-11):
1. Superiority complex (belief in one’s ability to succeed)
2. Insecurity (drive to work hard to prove one’s worth or to acquire wealth and security)
3. Impulse control (self discipline, ability to control oneself, deferring gratification). “If people are made to do almost any impulse-controlling task—even as simple as getting themselves to sit up straight—on a regular basis for even a few weeks, their overall willpower increases. Suddenly they’re stronger in all kinds of unrelated activities that also require concentration, perseverance, or temptation resistance” (133).
These qualities tend to be high in immigrants, and dissipate by the third generation (2).
Here are the highest performing groups (not in any order):
Mormons (30)
Jews (51) have a median household income of $97,000-98,000 per year (53)
Huguenots (French protestants) (20)
Iranians (89) - median household income of $68,000 (56)
Lebanese - stats not given (57)
*Cuban Exiles which came to the US in 1959-1973 (36), but not the Cuban Marielitos who came in 1980. “The Cuban Exile community is mostly white, whereas a substantial fraction of the Marielitos and post-1990 New Cubans were black or of mixed race” (40).
*Nigerians - doing better than the national average but not one of the top income earners (42-43). Their median annual household income is $58,000, and the national median across all races is $51,000 (44). (I notice that Nigeria is one of the 5 African countries which has an average IQ over 83, the other four being Uganda, Eritrea, Morocco, & Sierra Leone)
*Indians (41, 95) excel in science and spelling bees (46-47). Indians have the highest median household income of any ethnic group in the US at $90,500 per year (48).
Newer data on median household income by race in the US is different than the data listed in the book, but Indians remain the highest earners.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income
This site says Indian IQ is only 82.2:
http://aristocratsofthesoul.com/average-iq-by-race-and-ethnicity/
But explains their high income levels by say the discrepancy is probably due to selective immigration policies. (The 287 million illiterate adults in India are not the ones filling out immigration paperwork and now working high-tech jobs in the U.S.)
*Asians - particularly Chinese (Hmong, Laotian, and Cambodians don’t do well) (45). Asians “constitute 30-50% of the student bodies at the country’s leading music programs” (46). Chinese and Koreans excel in science and music (46-47). Asians are 5% of the US college-age population, but they make up 19% of undergrads at Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford. Suspicious that they have all the same percentage. “If admissions were based solely on National Merit Scholarship and SAT scores, these percentages would be even higher” (47). “At CalTech, said to base admissions solely on academic criteria, nearly 40% of the students are Asian” (48). Taiwanese have the next highest household income of any ethnic group in the US (48).
Stuyvesant High School in Lower Manhattan accepts students based solely on standardized test scores. . . . In 2013, the school’s new admittees consisted of 9 black children, 24 Latinos, 177 whites, and 620 Asians” (169-170). These Asians’ success can’t be explained by growing up in affluent households. “The Chinese parents in Sunset Park sending their children to Stuyvesant don’t tend to have PhDs; they’re more likely to be restaurant or factory workers” (171). “In 2012, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund filed a federal complaint against the city, objecting to the vast underrepresentation of blacks and Hispanics, and claiming that admitting students solely on the basis of test scores was racially discriminatory” (172). Ha!
Asian parents make their kids learn musical instruments because the discipline to be good at those enables them to have the discipline to learn other subjects (127).
“Asian American teenagers—and Asian Americans on the whole—have dramatically lower rates of drug use and heavy or binge drinking than any other racial group in the US. Asian American girls also have by far the lowest rates of teen childbirth of any racial group (around 11 births per 1000 Asian Americans in 2010, as compared with around 56 for Hispanics, 52 for blacks, and 24 for whites). Because giving birth for teenage girls, and being convicted of a drug crime for teenage boys, are so highly correlated with adverse economic outcomes later, Asian Americans’ impulse control in these domains contributes to their disproportionate success” (133).
Self-esteem negatively correlates with success. “In a study of almost 4000 freshmen at 28 selective American colleges, Asians said they were the least satisfied with themselves of any racial group; blacks reported the highest positive attitude toward themselves, followed by Latinos, then whites, then Asians” (112).
“Studies strongly suggest that the sense of group pride instilled in students at historically black colleges and universities has contributed to their achieving better academic and economic outcomes” (77). So voluntary segregation could be a good thing as long as the facilities are just as well kept as the white facilities. Contemporary black urban culture “disdains studiousness” because it’s “acting white,” but “Harvard economist Roland Fryer’s important 2006 study found that this phenomenon did not exist at all-black schools” (222).
Not all successful groups emphasize learning or higher education. An example is the Syrian Jewish enclave in Brooklyn (24).
America used to be a Triple Package nation (26). But now it is a youth culture which glorifies equality, self-acceptance, and spontanety (10-11), all of which are the opposite of the three things that make people succeed. “The successful are often the ones profiting from the people who live [in the moment]. Executives at America’s junk-food corporations are notorious for assiduously avoiding their own products” (143). “Here’s what America likes to tell Americans: Everyone is equal; feel good about yourself; live in the moment. Meanwhile, America’s successful groups tell their members something different: You are capable of great things because of the group to which you belong; but you, individually, are not good enough; so you need to control yourself, resist temptation, and prove yourself” (144).
“The American superiority complex of the late 18th century, and for a long time afterward, did not accept the idea that all men are created equal” (207). That’s because they’re not. If all people were equal, we’d be of equal heights, weights, IQs, and physical abilities. But we should all be TREATED as if we were equal, meaning there shouldn’t be discrimination. Except in competitions like sports and getting into colleges; there, obviously, the best athletes and brightest pupils should win or be admitted.
“Insecurity faded because of prosperity” (210). Interestingly, giving the poor welfare takes away their insecurity, which is one of the reasons why they don’t succeed at getting out of poverty. “Even as the welfare state has improved the material comfort of low-income Americans, [its] result has been the disintegration of the work ethic” - Robert Rector and Jennifer Marshall of the Heritage Foundation (209). Welfare doesn’t eliminate poverty; it eliminates insecurity and keeps people happily poor.
“Overall, American students are among the world’s leaders in self-esteem; they’re also among the lower-scoring. In a controlled experiment, students who received self-esteem boosting messages did worse than other students. In another study, repeating praising children for how intelligent they were lowered their scores on standardized test questions—and made them lie when asked how many questions they’d gotten right. Moreover, the basic claim that sociopathic behavior is caused by low self-esteem also proved false. Racists and criminals do not ‘secretly feel bad about themselves,’ researcher Nicholas Emler found. Serial rapists have ‘remarkably high levels of self esteem.’ Meanwhile, psychologists report that kids raised on a high-self-esteem diet often suffer depression and anxiety as adults, along with higher rates of narcissism” (213). “The self-esteem movement erodes impulse control. ‘People with incredibly positive views of themselves,’ researchers have found, are more willing to ‘do stupid or destructive things’ and more likely to satisfy their own desires even when the ‘costs are borne by others’” (214).
“A study in CA found drug and alcohol abuse higher among ‘upscale youth’; adolescents in a suburb where the average family income was over $120,000 reported ‘higher rates of . . . Substance abuse than any other socioeconomic group of young Americans today.’ Moreover, self-esteem parenting is much more common among wealthier Americans. AS the principal of a Silicon Valley prep school put it, ‘Avoiding discipline is endemic to affluent parents.’ Psychologists are observing an explosion of narcissism in America’s children, particularly among the better-ff. the so-called millennials—with their sense of entitlement, their expectation of being ‘CEO tomorrow,’ their belief that the workplace should adjust ‘around our lives instead of us adjusting our lives around work’—are for the most part not lower-income or minority youth. They’re the children of well-off white baby boomers” (216).
Argues that three traits make people succeed (8-11):
1. Superiority complex (belief in one’s ability to succeed)
2. Insecurity (drive to work hard to prove one’s worth or to acquire wealth and security)
3. Impulse control (self discipline, ability to control oneself, deferring gratification). “If people are made to do almost any impulse-controlling task—even as simple as getting themselves to sit up straight—on a regular basis for even a few weeks, their overall willpower increases. Suddenly they’re stronger in all kinds of unrelated activities that also require concentration, perseverance, or temptation resistance” (133).
These qualities tend to be high in immigrants, and dissipate by the third generation (2).
Here are the highest performing groups (not in any order):
Mormons (30)
Jews (51) have a median household income of $97,000-98,000 per year (53)
Huguenots (French protestants) (20)
Iranians (89) - median household income of $68,000 (56)
Lebanese - stats not given (57)
*Cuban Exiles which came to the US in 1959-1973 (36), but not the Cuban Marielitos who came in 1980. “The Cuban Exile community is mostly white, whereas a substantial fraction of the Marielitos and post-1990 New Cubans were black or of mixed race” (40).
*Nigerians - doing better than the national average but not one of the top income earners (42-43). Their median annual household income is $58,000, and the national median across all races is $51,000 (44). (I notice that Nigeria is one of the 5 African countries which has an average IQ over 83, the other four being Uganda, Eritrea, Morocco, & Sierra Leone)
*Indians (41, 95) excel in science and spelling bees (46-47). Indians have the highest median household income of any ethnic group in the US at $90,500 per year (48).
Newer data on median household income by race in the US is different than the data listed in the book, but Indians remain the highest earners.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income
This site says Indian IQ is only 82.2:
http://aristocratsofthesoul.com/average-iq-by-race-and-ethnicity/
But explains their high income levels by say the discrepancy is probably due to selective immigration policies. (The 287 million illiterate adults in India are not the ones filling out immigration paperwork and now working high-tech jobs in the U.S.)
*Asians - particularly Chinese (Hmong, Laotian, and Cambodians don’t do well) (45). Asians “constitute 30-50% of the student bodies at the country’s leading music programs” (46). Chinese and Koreans excel in science and music (46-47). Asians are 5% of the US college-age population, but they make up 19% of undergrads at Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford. Suspicious that they have all the same percentage. “If admissions were based solely on National Merit Scholarship and SAT scores, these percentages would be even higher” (47). “At CalTech, said to base admissions solely on academic criteria, nearly 40% of the students are Asian” (48). Taiwanese have the next highest household income of any ethnic group in the US (48).
Stuyvesant High School in Lower Manhattan accepts students based solely on standardized test scores. . . . In 2013, the school’s new admittees consisted of 9 black children, 24 Latinos, 177 whites, and 620 Asians” (169-170). These Asians’ success can’t be explained by growing up in affluent households. “The Chinese parents in Sunset Park sending their children to Stuyvesant don’t tend to have PhDs; they’re more likely to be restaurant or factory workers” (171). “In 2012, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund filed a federal complaint against the city, objecting to the vast underrepresentation of blacks and Hispanics, and claiming that admitting students solely on the basis of test scores was racially discriminatory” (172). Ha!
Asian parents make their kids learn musical instruments because the discipline to be good at those enables them to have the discipline to learn other subjects (127).
“Asian American teenagers—and Asian Americans on the whole—have dramatically lower rates of drug use and heavy or binge drinking than any other racial group in the US. Asian American girls also have by far the lowest rates of teen childbirth of any racial group (around 11 births per 1000 Asian Americans in 2010, as compared with around 56 for Hispanics, 52 for blacks, and 24 for whites). Because giving birth for teenage girls, and being convicted of a drug crime for teenage boys, are so highly correlated with adverse economic outcomes later, Asian Americans’ impulse control in these domains contributes to their disproportionate success” (133).
Self-esteem negatively correlates with success. “In a study of almost 4000 freshmen at 28 selective American colleges, Asians said they were the least satisfied with themselves of any racial group; blacks reported the highest positive attitude toward themselves, followed by Latinos, then whites, then Asians” (112).
“Studies strongly suggest that the sense of group pride instilled in students at historically black colleges and universities has contributed to their achieving better academic and economic outcomes” (77). So voluntary segregation could be a good thing as long as the facilities are just as well kept as the white facilities. Contemporary black urban culture “disdains studiousness” because it’s “acting white,” but “Harvard economist Roland Fryer’s important 2006 study found that this phenomenon did not exist at all-black schools” (222).
Not all successful groups emphasize learning or higher education. An example is the Syrian Jewish enclave in Brooklyn (24).
America used to be a Triple Package nation (26). But now it is a youth culture which glorifies equality, self-acceptance, and spontanety (10-11), all of which are the opposite of the three things that make people succeed. “The successful are often the ones profiting from the people who live [in the moment]. Executives at America’s junk-food corporations are notorious for assiduously avoiding their own products” (143). “Here’s what America likes to tell Americans: Everyone is equal; feel good about yourself; live in the moment. Meanwhile, America’s successful groups tell their members something different: You are capable of great things because of the group to which you belong; but you, individually, are not good enough; so you need to control yourself, resist temptation, and prove yourself” (144).
“The American superiority complex of the late 18th century, and for a long time afterward, did not accept the idea that all men are created equal” (207). That’s because they’re not. If all people were equal, we’d be of equal heights, weights, IQs, and physical abilities. But we should all be TREATED as if we were equal, meaning there shouldn’t be discrimination. Except in competitions like sports and getting into colleges; there, obviously, the best athletes and brightest pupils should win or be admitted.
“Insecurity faded because of prosperity” (210). Interestingly, giving the poor welfare takes away their insecurity, which is one of the reasons why they don’t succeed at getting out of poverty. “Even as the welfare state has improved the material comfort of low-income Americans, [its] result has been the disintegration of the work ethic” - Robert Rector and Jennifer Marshall of the Heritage Foundation (209). Welfare doesn’t eliminate poverty; it eliminates insecurity and keeps people happily poor.
“Overall, American students are among the world’s leaders in self-esteem; they’re also among the lower-scoring. In a controlled experiment, students who received self-esteem boosting messages did worse than other students. In another study, repeating praising children for how intelligent they were lowered their scores on standardized test questions—and made them lie when asked how many questions they’d gotten right. Moreover, the basic claim that sociopathic behavior is caused by low self-esteem also proved false. Racists and criminals do not ‘secretly feel bad about themselves,’ researcher Nicholas Emler found. Serial rapists have ‘remarkably high levels of self esteem.’ Meanwhile, psychologists report that kids raised on a high-self-esteem diet often suffer depression and anxiety as adults, along with higher rates of narcissism” (213). “The self-esteem movement erodes impulse control. ‘People with incredibly positive views of themselves,’ researchers have found, are more willing to ‘do stupid or destructive things’ and more likely to satisfy their own desires even when the ‘costs are borne by others’” (214).
“A study in CA found drug and alcohol abuse higher among ‘upscale youth’; adolescents in a suburb where the average family income was over $120,000 reported ‘higher rates of . . . Substance abuse than any other socioeconomic group of young Americans today.’ Moreover, self-esteem parenting is much more common among wealthier Americans. AS the principal of a Silicon Valley prep school put it, ‘Avoiding discipline is endemic to affluent parents.’ Psychologists are observing an explosion of narcissism in America’s children, particularly among the better-ff. the so-called millennials—with their sense of entitlement, their expectation of being ‘CEO tomorrow,’ their belief that the workplace should adjust ‘around our lives instead of us adjusting our lives around work’—are for the most part not lower-income or minority youth. They’re the children of well-off white baby boomers” (216).
cherrytan's review
2.0
3 stars because this book was reasonably well-backed up with references (as observed in the endnotes). However, for a supposedly academic book, it was sensationalised with heavy cultural stereotypes and very presumptuous assumptions that make it less credible -- which is rather unfortunate because one would expect professors from Yale to be nothing less than credible and reliable.
Some assumptions I took issue with pertain to Chinese people, especially when the authors refer to Chinese outside of America:
1) "Today, Chinese kids -- in America as in the rest of the world -- are typically raised on a diet of stories about how Chinese civilization is the oldest and most magnificent in world history... -- and ditto Chinese cuisine." (page 122)
2) "Visit just about any primary school in China, Taiwan or Singapore, and rather than children running around exploring and being rewarded for spontaneity and originality, you'll find students sitting upright, drilling, memorizing, and reciting excruciatingly long passages." (Page 126)
3) "After school and on weekends, it is rare for even very young children to 'hang out with friends'". (page 126)
4) "Being 'deeply proud of Chinese culture' can easily shade into 'We'll disown you if you marry someone non-Chinese'." (page 156)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Never happened to me, nor most of the people I know around me. Sure, my parents have told me stuff about ancient China, but never bragged about how the Chinese are supposedly 'superior' to every other group in world history. It was informative, not narcissism and elitism.
2) This is absolutely false. The system here is stressful, no doubt, but it is not as disgustingly strict as the authors presume it to be. Absolutely, 100% presumptuous. I never felt that pressure in primary school. Kids don't even have to take exams in their first two years in primary school to make the transition easier for them, originality and spontaneity is usually rewarded as appropriate. I have never been made to drill, memorize and excruciatingly recite impossibly long passages. It is unwise to assume these things that are merely uninformed and ignorant stereotypes. Shame on the authors, especially given how well-read they are.
3) While true, it is more for safety reasons than for wanting to trap children in enrichment lessons of all sorts. Having a conservative mindset means not feeling very secure about having your five-year-old child running around on weekends alone with their friends. At most, playtime is supervised and "very young children" should not, in our views, be left alone to "hang out" unsupervised because if something goes wrong, no one old enough is present to help. Another baseless assumption made in poor taste.
4) Exaggeration in academic writing makes your claim look immature. This claim is not true, especially with the younger generation of Chinese who feel the need to take control of their own future and not let others do it for them.
Basically, what I take issue with is the many careless assumptions that were made in bad taste, perhaps to stir controversy and increase readership. It is disturbing that tricks like these would be employed by learned academics. I cannot say the same for the other groups explored, but this book, while exploring a valid concept, is rendered unreliable especially when cultural stereotypes are used excessively (and not proved well enough). Using isolated examples to prove a claim does nothing to show the validity and applicability of it to the group as a whole, as isolated examples may well be exceptions to the rule. Even if not the exception, it is not an accurate reflection of the group as a whole.
What the authors could have done to improve is to have conducted more of their own research instead of relying on 'many studies' and 'relevant studies'. Perhaps they could have added superscripts next to their claims to show that the relevant point has been backed up in the endnotes. That would make the lot of their claims look a whole less presumptuous.
Overall, this book was more entertaining than stimulating or informative. Pity, given the ideas were relevant and had so much potential to be explored to greater depths.
Some assumptions I took issue with pertain to Chinese people, especially when the authors refer to Chinese outside of America:
1) "Today, Chinese kids -- in America as in the rest of the world -- are typically raised on a diet of stories about how Chinese civilization is the oldest and most magnificent in world history... -- and ditto Chinese cuisine." (page 122)
2) "Visit just about any primary school in China, Taiwan or Singapore, and rather than children running around exploring and being rewarded for spontaneity and originality, you'll find students sitting upright, drilling, memorizing, and reciting excruciatingly long passages." (Page 126)
3) "After school and on weekends, it is rare for even very young children to 'hang out with friends'". (page 126)
4) "Being 'deeply proud of Chinese culture' can easily shade into 'We'll disown you if you marry someone non-Chinese'." (page 156)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Never happened to me, nor most of the people I know around me. Sure, my parents have told me stuff about ancient China, but never bragged about how the Chinese are supposedly 'superior' to every other group in world history. It was informative, not narcissism and elitism.
2) This is absolutely false. The system here is stressful, no doubt, but it is not as disgustingly strict as the authors presume it to be. Absolutely, 100% presumptuous. I never felt that pressure in primary school. Kids don't even have to take exams in their first two years in primary school to make the transition easier for them, originality and spontaneity is usually rewarded as appropriate. I have never been made to drill, memorize and excruciatingly recite impossibly long passages. It is unwise to assume these things that are merely uninformed and ignorant stereotypes. Shame on the authors, especially given how well-read they are.
3) While true, it is more for safety reasons than for wanting to trap children in enrichment lessons of all sorts. Having a conservative mindset means not feeling very secure about having your five-year-old child running around on weekends alone with their friends. At most, playtime is supervised and "very young children" should not, in our views, be left alone to "hang out" unsupervised because if something goes wrong, no one old enough is present to help. Another baseless assumption made in poor taste.
4) Exaggeration in academic writing makes your claim look immature. This claim is not true, especially with the younger generation of Chinese who feel the need to take control of their own future and not let others do it for them.
Basically, what I take issue with is the many careless assumptions that were made in bad taste, perhaps to stir controversy and increase readership. It is disturbing that tricks like these would be employed by learned academics. I cannot say the same for the other groups explored, but this book, while exploring a valid concept, is rendered unreliable especially when cultural stereotypes are used excessively (and not proved well enough). Using isolated examples to prove a claim does nothing to show the validity and applicability of it to the group as a whole, as isolated examples may well be exceptions to the rule. Even if not the exception, it is not an accurate reflection of the group as a whole.
What the authors could have done to improve is to have conducted more of their own research instead of relying on 'many studies' and 'relevant studies'. Perhaps they could have added superscripts next to their claims to show that the relevant point has been backed up in the endnotes. That would make the lot of their claims look a whole less presumptuous.
Overall, this book was more entertaining than stimulating or informative. Pity, given the ideas were relevant and had so much potential to be explored to greater depths.
More...