Scan barcode
A review by cherrytan
The Triple Package: How Three Unlikely Traits Explain the Rise and Fall of Cultural Groups in America by Amy Chua, Jed Rubenfeld
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.