4 ms·

The reason parents in the US tend to have children with "achievement mindset" is because the culture itself rewards and favors achievements instead of growth.

by hosh 4y ago

The reason parents in the US tend to have children with "achievement mindset" is because the culture itself rewards and favors achievements instead of growth. The reason parents in the US don't invest time with their toddlers is because they feel they don't have time. They don't have time because it is typically about career success (achievement), wealth, status, and so forth. Or in other social classes, it's just overwhelming to just be able to barely survive. Culturally, American has one of the highest overworked population (it is cultural because that is the generally accepted norm), scores among the highest for individualism (instead of collectivism). Those all play into how people parent. And don't get me started on the idea of free range parenting. In this day and age, in America, letting the kids out to play in the streets can get you, as the parent, arrested for neglect and censured by the neighbors. Those are all part of the cultural norms. To do what you suggest at the psychological level requires pushing back against those cultural norms, some with legal consequences. You are welcomed to define all of this as psychology, but I think if you talked with sociologists and other people, they would tell you these are cultural rather than psychological factors. It's not stopping my wife and I from parenting my kid in the way we think is best for them. But I'm not blind to the fact that I am going against the grain of cultural norms and generally accepted behavior, beliefs, and practices of the mainstream US culture.

jimkleiber 4y ago
Maybe the difference in what you two are is that psychological is often internal to one person whereas cultural can be internal to many people. For example, me working on the fear that I have to open up publicly because my house was robbed when I lived overseas and was a semi-celebrity can be my personal psychological journey. The collective "don't share too much about your private life online" could a collective cultural belief stemming from many different experiences that impacted individuals to have such beliefs and fears. I've been thinking a lot about whether to change culture (group) or change psychology (individual) and my latest belief on this is that I want to get better at loving myself and loving others and then train the handful of people who also want to do that, with the idea being that if a few of us start, it may spread to others, this going from the individual to group, maybe psychological to cultural. I don't necessarily like the psych/cultural distinction, as I think both often influence how I'm feeling. Scared to post because I might get robbed again, also scared to post because people may resond with "you shouldn't post things like that online." So I think maybe it's both. However I still like the idea of starting with me and maybe a few others who really really want to get better at it and maybe influence by osmosis.
- hosh 4y ago
  > So I think maybe it's both. However I still like the idea of starting with me and maybe a few others who really really want to get better at it and maybe influence by osmosis. That's how I approach this too.
concinds 4y ago
> The reason parents in the US tend to have children with "achievement mindset" is because the culture itself rewards and favors achievements instead of growth. Self-confidence comes from achievement; there's no conflict between the two. That's again my distinction between culture (emulation, "you must achieve lots", which leads to burnt out kids) and psychology ("I'm confident in my abilities; I can achieve what I want if I work hard at it"). High-confidence kids will inherently want to achieve. There's no conflict; studies show that Asian kids have more of a growth mindset than other kids. Conditioning parental love to achievement is what's unnecesary and harmful. And I think my reply to another commenter addresses the "culture-psychology" distinction better. I'm talking about cultural change meant to improve the psychological nurturance-level of families, schools, communities, which I call "psychological change" as shorthand. I'm criticizing cultural change that's psychologically illiterate, and treats the problems it solves as cultural problems rather than psychological problems. "Teach men not to rape", for example, is cultural change that completely ignores all psychological dimensions ("rape culture", i.e. trivializing sexual assault, is just a symptom of emotionally unhealthy people, not a cause). Same with the ADL's pyramid of hate, that sees "fear of difference" and "lack of self-reflection on privilege" as the root causes, when the real problems are emotional and psychological problems within society (lack of empathy) that lead to hate and bigotry. Cultural change needs to be deeply informed by psychology to be effective. People are emotionally unhealthy, and the culture reflects that. Culture is downstream from psychology. Cultural change can address it, but only by causing psycohlogical change, not merely cultural change. Re-analyzing the examples above: reacting to bigoted people with hatred and ostracism is just another symptom our low-nurturance society. It's cultural change without psychological change. Buddhists had it right all along. Is that clearer?
- hosh 4y ago
  > Self-confidence comes from achievement Perhaps you should lookup what Carol Dewek means by "achievement mindset" and "growth mindset". I don't think the way you are using it is the same that she is using it. Self-confidence, self-esteem that is built from a process of intrinsic motivation is different than self-esteem built from extrinsic motivation. The self-esteem built from extrinsic motivation is shaky, and requires a constant feeding of validation. The mainstream culture is such that kids, many parents, and some teachers understand self-esteem as you do, without making a distinction between how it is developed. > Cultural change needs to be deeply informed by psychology to be effective. I'm not arguing with you there. An individual is nested within the community. It also means you cannot really separate psychology from culture either. Keep in mind, I have not once advocated that we change the culture. I am simply stating that the culture matters. > People are emotionally unhealthy, and the culture reflects that. Culture is downstream from psychology. Cultural change can address it, but only by causing psycohlogical change, not merely cultural change. That's an assumption that is not necessarily true. Psychology can also reflect culture, and it is not such a straightforward cause-and-effect. It's easy to see it as a hierarchical relationship (downstream vs. upstream), and to the extent that individuals are nested within a community, that's true. However, there are complex interaction between individuals and the communities they nest within. Just as you see that psychological changes must be taken into consideration for cultural change to be effective, cultural changes must be taken into consideration too as the context of that change. A tree is not just the trunk, the branches, the roots and the trees; it is also the sunlight, the soil, the wind, the seasons, the people ... The way you talk about culture and culture change seems like a cynical observation of business buzzspeak. The way I have been talking about culture and culture change is more along the lines of sociology. > Buddhists had it right all along. That's a rabbit hole all on its own. Psychological changes are difficult to enact without mindfulness ... likewise, there's a collective consciousness (culture) in which changees are difficult to enact without mindfulness. Metta (loving-kindness) is powerful transformative, and the Mahayana practitioners ardently go all the way with that ... but what's also transformative is a neutral, agnostic attitude of "let the cosmos decide". Not everyone, even within the diverse practices of Buddhism, aspires to be a Bodhisattva. And then I can get into the whole bit about "consensus" or "nice" Buddhism that seems to be the Western, pop understanding of Buddhism ... And then there is also how Buddhist practices cultivates a non-dual perspective, in which no single part can be completely separated from the Whole. You can't separate the tree from the sun or the land. That there is a seamless Whole is the basis for metta in the first place ... > Is that clearer? Are you asking if you are communicating your point of view clearer, or are you saying that your point of view is more correct than mine's, and asking me if that correctness is clearer?

by hosh 4y ago

jimkleiber 4y ago

Maybe the difference in what you two are is that psychological is often internal to one person whereas cultural can be internal to many people. For example, me working on the fear that I have to open up publicly because my house was robbed when I lived overseas and was a semi-celebrity can be my personal psychological journey. The collective "don't share too much about your private life online" could a collective cultural belief stemming from many different experiences that impacted individuals to have such beliefs and fears. I've been thinking a lot about whether to change culture (group) or change psychology (individual) and my latest belief on this is that I want to get better at loving myself and loving others and then train the handful of people who also want to do that, with the idea being that if a few of us start, it may spread to others, this going from the individual to group, maybe psychological to cultural. I don't necessarily like the psych/cultural distinction, as I think both often influence how I'm feeling. Scared to post because I might get robbed again, also scared to post because people may resond with "you shouldn't post things like that online." So I think maybe it's both. However I still like the idea of starting with me and maybe a few others who really really want to get better at it and maybe influence by osmosis.

hosh 4y ago
> So I think maybe it's both. However I still like the idea of starting with me and maybe a few others who really really want to get better at it and maybe influence by osmosis. That's how I approach this too.

concinds 4y ago

> The reason parents in the US tend to have children with "achievement mindset" is because the culture itself rewards and favors achievements instead of growth. Self-confidence comes from achievement; there's no conflict between the two. That's again my distinction between culture (emulation, "you must achieve lots", which leads to burnt out kids) and psychology ("I'm confident in my abilities; I can achieve what I want if I work hard at it"). High-confidence kids will inherently want to achieve. There's no conflict; studies show that Asian kids have more of a growth mindset than other kids. Conditioning parental love to achievement is what's unnecesary and harmful. And I think my reply to another commenter addresses the "culture-psychology" distinction better. I'm talking about cultural change meant to improve the psychological nurturance-level of families, schools, communities, which I call "psychological change" as shorthand. I'm criticizing cultural change that's psychologically illiterate, and treats the problems it solves as cultural problems rather than psychological problems. "Teach men not to rape", for example, is cultural change that completely ignores all psychological dimensions ("rape culture", i.e. trivializing sexual assault, is just a symptom of emotionally unhealthy people, not a cause). Same with the ADL's pyramid of hate, that sees "fear of difference" and "lack of self-reflection on privilege" as the root causes, when the real problems are emotional and psychological problems within society (lack of empathy) that lead to hate and bigotry. Cultural change needs to be deeply informed by psychology to be effective. People are emotionally unhealthy, and the culture reflects that. Culture is downstream from psychology. Cultural change can address it, but only by causing psycohlogical change, not merely cultural change. Re-analyzing the examples above: reacting to bigoted people with hatred and ostracism is just another symptom our low-nurturance society. It's cultural change without psychological change. Buddhists had it right all along. Is that clearer?

hosh 4y ago
> Self-confidence comes from achievement Perhaps you should lookup what Carol Dewek means by "achievement mindset" and "growth mindset". I don't think the way you are using it is the same that she is using it. Self-confidence, self-esteem that is built from a process of intrinsic motivation is different than self-esteem built from extrinsic motivation. The self-esteem built from extrinsic motivation is shaky, and requires a constant feeding of validation. The mainstream culture is such that kids, many parents, and some teachers understand self-esteem as you do, without making a distinction between how it is developed. > Cultural change needs to be deeply informed by psychology to be effective. I'm not arguing with you there. An individual is nested within the community. It also means you cannot really separate psychology from culture either. Keep in mind, I have not once advocated that we change the culture. I am simply stating that the culture matters. > People are emotionally unhealthy, and the culture reflects that. Culture is downstream from psychology. Cultural change can address it, but only by causing psycohlogical change, not merely cultural change. That's an assumption that is not necessarily true. Psychology can also reflect culture, and it is not such a straightforward cause-and-effect. It's easy to see it as a hierarchical relationship (downstream vs. upstream), and to the extent that individuals are nested within a community, that's true. However, there are complex interaction between individuals and the communities they nest within. Just as you see that psychological changes must be taken into consideration for cultural change to be effective, cultural changes must be taken into consideration too as the context of that change. A tree is not just the trunk, the branches, the roots and the trees; it is also the sunlight, the soil, the wind, the seasons, the people ... The way you talk about culture and culture change seems like a cynical observation of business buzzspeak. The way I have been talking about culture and culture change is more along the lines of sociology. > Buddhists had it right all along. That's a rabbit hole all on its own. Psychological changes are difficult to enact without mindfulness ... likewise, there's a collective consciousness (culture) in which changees are difficult to enact without mindfulness. Metta (loving-kindness) is powerful transformative, and the Mahayana practitioners ardently go all the way with that ... but what's also transformative is a neutral, agnostic attitude of "let the cosmos decide". Not everyone, even within the diverse practices of Buddhism, aspires to be a Bodhisattva. And then I can get into the whole bit about "consensus" or "nice" Buddhism that seems to be the Western, pop understanding of Buddhism ... And then there is also how Buddhist practices cultivates a non-dual perspective, in which no single part can be completely separated from the Whole. You can't separate the tree from the sun or the land. That there is a seamless Whole is the basis for metta in the first place ... > Is that clearer? Are you asking if you are communicating your point of view clearer, or are you saying that your point of view is more correct than mine's, and asking me if that correctness is clearer?