Nurturing Tiger Moms

February 2, 2011

Bryan Caplan discusses Tiger Mother Amy Chua and I’m completely on-board until he says the following:

But hasn’t all the musical practice indelibly shaped Chua’s children’s characters?  Highly unlikely.  Behavioral genetics finds roughly zero effect of parents on personality.

I think this is a misinterpretation of The Nurture Assumption. The theory states that a large part of a child’s personality is environmental, that is, “nurture” but that this influence is mostly from peers rather than parents or teachers. What I think Caplan forgets is that parents can have an impact on children by indirectly influencing who their peers will be.

For instance, parents can influence their children’s personalities indirectly by the neighbourhood they choose to live in. If I remember correctly, Judith Rich Harris claims that the age of the parent(s) and whether a child is raised by a single parent has zero impact on child personality once you correct for the neighbourhood influence.

In her WSJ article, Chua says the following:

Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:

• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

• get any grade less than an A

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama

• play any instrument other than the piano or violin

• not play the piano or violin.

How many of these rules do you think will significantly affect the relationship these children have with their peers? I’m guessing it is non-zero and possibly as important as neighbourhood/school choice.

Advertisements

One Response to “Nurturing Tiger Moms”

  1. Ananthu Says:

    Most of you guys seem to be missing the true point of solo’s.Getting plopee to opt-in really means nothing, because just like was discovered above, a seller can easily pay plopee a few pennies to signup to your list, and that subscriber has a negative value. (it costs you money to have an autoresponder account, so every bad lead in your account has a negative value since it costs you money to have but will never make you any money.)When I do solo’s I look at actual conversion. The initial signup means nothing to me, I tend to offer the person an additional free thing of high value in return for taking some additional action.People who were paid to signup to your list never take those added steps that a real lead would take.So when a person goes through my squeeze process I see the reality of the solo mailing. If the seller provided real plopee, that will be reflected in my final conversions, if he sent trash traffic, that also shows it’s self in my final conversions.I always buy the smallest package offered from the seller and look at the real conversions, then run away or buy more, whichever is appropriate based on my conversion ratio.Before anyone challenges my method by saying you will lose conversions if you make plopee do too many things, you are wrong.If my initial offer is a free copy of abc ebook, and they take it, and my oto is an offer for a free software that will automate the tasks in the ebook they just took from me, then anyone actually interested in that original ebook will of course also opt for the free software.This is how you uncover clever scams by sellers. Either their leads are real, or they aren’t, and you can tell right away even from their smallest offer.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: