Thursday, 8 September 2022

Why do young parents get so defensive about this?

Hi guys, I'm currently working on a much longer piece to tell you about my new job but here's a quick rant to get something off my chest entitled, "this is why I don't leave comments on Facebook". Normally, I don't like to interact with people on Facebook because I often end up disagreeing with someone I don't even know and it all blows up into a massive argument because someone took what I had written as a personal insult. So recently, I chanced upon a status update by a friend and I couldn't resist: I have changed all the details to protect the identity of the young child involved as we're talking about a two year old girl here. I have a friend in Belgium whom we shall call Frank, he has a Dutch wife with Eastern European roots. Frank is originally from Malaysia and they have a daughter whom we shall call Lisa. Given that both Frank and his wife are multilingual, there is the opportunity to teach Lisa up to six or seven languages but Frank was worried that young Lisa might get confused if they overloaded her young mind with vocabulary from so many languages; what if she was trying to write a sentence in French or Dutch whilst at school but comes up with a word from another language like English or Polish instead? After all, Lisa is only two years old at the moment so it's not as if that has happened yet, but being a concerned parent, Frank just wants to know if he is doing the right thing by exposing his daughter to this many languages at that age. This seems like quite a normal conversation until I waded in and offended a lot of the parents there. I'll share with you my opinion here because I'm sure my regular readers know me well - I'm not saying anything all that controversial, but I'll let you be the judge as I was genuinely quite surprised by the reaction I got. 

Now my opinion is that Frank should continue exposing Lisa to a large number of languages and she may become stunningly multilingual, she may not but at least it is always good to stimulate a young mind in a variety of ways: be it through music, sports, dance, food, meeting new people or in this case, learning words from another language. However, the key factor as to whether or not Lisa will grow up to be excellent at languages or crap at them depends on whether she has a talent for language - let's not pretend that learning a new language is easy. I am currently trying very hard to make my Spanish fluent enough for my new job and I'm grappling with so many aspects of Spanish: I really need to improve  my listening comprehension, I need to expand my vocabulary, I need a better grasp of the grammar and whilst I enjoy the process, oh it is really difficult. I already speak Spanish and it is my fourth language, imagine if I had to make a language like German (currently my eighth language) as good as my second language French - that would be a much bigger challenge than the one I have on my plate now. Many people have indeed tried and failed - either they give up, or they do just enough to pass an exam for the language at school and then promptly forget everything they have ever learnt. So I really thought I was simply stating the obvious when I pointed out that Lisa would pick up those languages if she was really intelligent, had a high IQ and had a talent for languages but if she was stupid, then it wouldn't matter what you did, then you couldn't cure her stupidity as a parent by trying to bring her up in a completely different manner - you get the child you're given. I speak for myself as a child whose parents probably got most things wrong, but as I am really quite intelligent, hence I taught myself a lot of things anyway and I was not dependent on my parents teaching me much.

Oh the reaction, I offended so many people and they were all so angry at me. It was not like they had a good argument to point out to me that I was wrong, it was all like, "every child is unique and different, you can't reduce a child down to their IQ - they could have other talents and gifts that do not show up in a regular IQ test or the exam results." Then there were the parents who claimed that there was a lot of science behind how young children like Lisa react to different kinds of stimuli and that many studies have shown the importance of raising children the right way in order to help give them the best start in life as their young brains are developing. And so I said, "yeah so you have a dumb kid who is failing to respond to anything the teachers are doing at school, but once you switch to organic vegetables and San Pellegrino mineral water suddenly, you've turned on a switch in the kid's brain and they go from zero to hero. As if you can cure stupidity and increase a child's IQ by doing little things like that." I say this as I was woefully neglected as a child, if not for the fact that I had two older sisters who looked out for me, if it was left to my parents, I would have probably died of neglect before the age of five given how my parents really weren't interested in me at all. Oh that angered even more parents, I was attacked and told that "IQ is a bourgeoisie construct designed to discriminate against certain groups of people and it was wrong to differentiate people into stupid and clever. A bus driver is contributes to society as much as a hedge fund manager and we shouldn't use arbitrary benchmarks like IQ or paper qualifications to judge people." I rolled my eyes, how did we even get here? Oh yeah - it was my suggestion that young Lisa needed to be intelligent before she could do anything she wanted, or else she can forget it. Let's just say that I don't think Lisa is going to get into a top university if she was downright stupid. Pardon me for stating the obvious but it does help to be naturally intelligent in life. 

Then of course, I encountered the rebuttal was, "you are not a parent, you'll never understand." Yeah - too darn right, I am not a parent so I will never understand what it is like to have a really stupid child but to go so deep into denial and tell yourself crap like, "my son is just a late developer, he is just a bit playful, he needs to learn focus and then he will reach his full potential." Look, I wasn't even suggesting anything about Lisa - at the age of two, it is way too early for anyone to try to pass any judgment on whether or not she will become a clever child or not. But it's just the suggestion that she could be clever or stupid which made quite a few of the young parents very upset on that Facebook discussion. Why is this so? Take my suggestion that whether or not Lisa would become stunningly multilingual would depend on whether she was intelligent or not - one parents claimed that in some societies in South Africa, people there spoke several languages as being so multilingual was just a way of life in that part of the world and it wasn't associated with being super intelligent or having a very high IQ. That's untrue as it does take a lot of effort to master a new language to a high standard - now in the case of these people in South Africa, they have an incentive to speak a new language: it's called making money. If a Xhosa speaker wants to sell his goods to the nearby Zulu community, then he has an incentive to want to learn Zulu. Just look at the way the Chinese and Malay communities in Singapore have been exposed to each other's languages for decades, but they make little or no effort to bother learning each other's language: simply being exposed to a language doesn't mean you'll pick it up. You need a good incentive to want to learn a language! You can't catch it the way you get Covid - never underestimate just how difficult it can be to become fluent in a foreign language. 

Perhaps these people (these are Frank's friends whom I don't know) weren't worried about their children being subjected to my harsh judgment, maybe they were worried about me judging them. Maybe they are thinking, hey I don't speak seven languages, I barely speak two but I refuse to let Alex tell me that it is because I am stupid! Thus it could be that these young parents themselves don't want to be judged - after all, what Frank is doing is pretty amazing: how many parents can bring up their children in such a multilingual environment? What Lisa is experiencing is nothing short of amazing of course, but the parents out there who are bringing up their children with only one or two languages must be thinking, wait a minute I am not doing this - does this make me a bad parent? That's when I roll my eyes and reassure them that if they do have a child who will develop a passion for a particular foreign language, they will pursue it when they are older. My friend Alfred from gymnastics who is totally fluent in Spanish - he had spent his gap year working in Spain and then he has spent most of this summer back in Spain in a Spanish speaking work environment. He did all this with no help from his parents, who are as Scottish as they come and are totally monolingual. He happens to also speak French and German to a very high standard as well!  Now I wouldn't say that my friend's parents were terrible parents in not having raised him speaking all those foreign languages in that they raised a young man who was impressively intelligent and resourceful enough to pursue anything he was passionate about with very little or no help from his parents. Contrast that to the young adults who are completely dependent on their parents for everything and whose parents have to give them so much support into adulthood; but we're still left with a tricky question - do we give Alfred's parents some credit for the way they have brought up Alfred or is all that credit really for Alfred to claim for himself then?

At the end of the day, I think these young parents are defensive because they want to be good parents but they are terrified at the idea that there are things that are simply beyond their control. Now that's me being kind and giving them the benefit of the doubt; if I wanted to be a bitch, I'd say they're totally out of touch with reality, refusing to accept the limits of their power of influence over their children. But on the other hand, very smart people like Alfred can go on to achieve anything they want but would that be a uphill struggle against the odds (as in my case) or would his parents be there every step of the way to support and help him? I go back to this saying from the world of poker: it is possible to win with a bad hand but it's hard to lose when you're dealt a really good hand. So what do you think? Have you met young parents who are woefully unrealistic or incredibly defensive about their parenting skills? Do you think anyone can learn six or seven languages to a high standard or is that really only reserved for really intelligent people? What are the factor that will determine if Lisa will become multilingual? Please feel free to leave a comment below, many thanks for reading. 

18 comments:

  1. Hey Alex. Oh gosh I have heard new parents discuss the best parenting techniques endlessly because my dad had children 10 years later than all his friends and siblings/cousins. So I have a lot of cousins who were parents when I was a teen, and people can get very defensive about their way of parenting as if they're debating politics. My opinion is just to stay out of it, not worth the trouble. The only case where I'd intervene is if someone is the extremes of either spoiling their kid too much such that they will end up bums in the future, or if they're absolutely neglecting them that they'll end up super lonely and unable to relax. Anything in between, not worth the argument.

    By the way, any comments on the new rulers of Britain? Both King Charles and PM Liz Truss? I'm surprised Rishi Sunak was out of the running so quickly, I thought being non-white would've made him popular with the voters who wanted to see more diversity in PMs. I don't have much of an opinion about Charles, aside from admiring his efforts to promote organic farming and mitigating climate change. But I know many working class people who would love to see the monarchy dismantled, even if they tolerated the British Royal Family only because the Queen was so popular.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi there Amanda, yeah I've fallen behind the blogging as I was penning a new piece to share my experiences and challenges with my new job. Then of course the Queen died then I paused that other piece to write a new one about the passing of the Queen. As for Prince Charles and Liz Truss, well Charles is no stranger, we've known him for many years and he is 73 so we know what to expect from him. I am don't have any strong feelings about him, like we knew the Queen was old, we knew she was going to die eventually and we knew that he was going to take over so there's nothing that surprising at all about the sequence of events. As for Liz Truss, I am disappointed - she is more of the same old stuff, yeah she's a woman but we don't expect a change in the direction of the politics. So again, not much has changed since we got rid of Boris Johnson. But remember, she didn't win an election! The Conservative party is the ruling party and they had a leadership change so the new leader was selected by the members of the Conservative party so people like me don't get say, because I am NOT a member of that political party. So the new PM was chosen by a tiny, tiny group of people who represent the most hardcore voters of the Conservative party rather than the general public at large in the UK.

      I must point out to you that many working class people actually adore the monarchy despite the fact that the royal family are stinking rich - the Queen was one of the richest people in the world and the British royal family's assets are estimated to be approx. 88 billion USD. They have absolutely nothing in common with poor working class folks but why do the working class adore the Queen and the royal family? Akan datang, all shall be explained in my next post.

      Delete
    2. Oh yeah, you recently started your new job, congratulations on that! Looking forward to hearing about using Spanish for work and intercontinental business. Yeah I suppose Charles taking over isn't a surprise, I'd be more shocked if parliament made Charles abdicate in favor of William because him and Kate are more popular. Lol I've watched Liz Truss' speeches and they do make me cringe just like Boris Johnson did. There is gonna be an election in 18 months though, I don't really like her, but I don't think Kier Starmer will win either. Wow the UK is really going through a wave of unpopular politicians right now, similar to how people didn't like Hilary or Donald back in 2016 in the US.

      I've always found this so strange when working class people idolize wealthy people. But then again I grew up wealthy so I know wealthy people are just as messed up as anyone else. Maybe its the fantasy of people having what they don't have. Recently I was complaining to a coworker about my ex, and I said "I don't get why I was ever in love with him..." and he said to me "well status... he makes so much money." I was very baffled by that because my ex would frequently complain he didn't make enough, and that he's jealous I'll make way more money than him in the finance/tech industries after I graduate. The thing is, my coworker used to like my ex a lot until he found out how classist he was and how much his parents spoil him, since my coworker comes from a very blue-collar family.

      My suspicion is that only conservative working class people adore the royal family. It's similar to how poor rural Americans love Donald Trump and the Trump family despite Trump making every policy imaginable to benefit rich people at the expense of the poor. Because of their conservative and pro-business values, I suspect they think being rich means someone is very hardworking and a good person, until they hear what is said behind closed doors.

      Delete
    3. The royal family is steeped in tradition, protocol and rules, so they cannot have a manpower reshuffle as if it was a company promoting one person and reorganizing a department. The parliament cannot dictate who takes over from the Queen, it's not something the government gets to dictate. The royal family don't perform any political function, they are neutral from the government and like it or not, even if say King Charles does something horrible that makes him hugely unpopular, the government will just sit by and not intervene. I don't think we're going to become a Republic any time soon.

      Delete
    4. True. Constitutional monarchies tend to last unless there are some provisions in the constitution that permits the monarch to seize power in the event of an emergency, and which the ruler abuses for his own gain. Most recently, this happened in Nepal and the King was eventually ousted.

      Not sure if the British monarch can do this, but even so I believe King Charles III would remain politically neutral like the late Queen. I believe environmental politics is the only area he has ever involved himself in.

      Delete
    5. Oh yeah we remember the massacre where the Nepali prince killed the King & Queen by spraying bullets into a party killing 9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_royal_massacre I don't think Charles is ever going to do anything all too controversial - divorcing Diana and marrying Camilla has already been accepted as just what happens in modern society. People get divorced, marriages don't work out, divorce is normal rather than a sign of weakness or a personal flaw. Likewise, I don't see William being controversial either - if you're after controversy, try looking at the current Thai King who is super corrupt but still supported by a bunch of sheep who turn a blind eye to his corruption and kowtow to his position just because he is royal.

      Delete
    6. You make a good point about the Thai king getting way more freedom than Charles and still being popular. Are you going to include that example in your next article? I heard people who don't like corrupt politicians tend to favor monarchs more. There's also Plato who hated democracy and preferred a benevolent dictator who was raised from birth to be a good leader. I just think, nobody is under any obligation to help anybody, and despite how lying and corrupt politicians can be, there is no better incentive than the threat of being voted out of office. Actually I've been watching a new documentary on HBOmax about the Spanish king. Not the current one, Felipe, but his father Juan Carlos who had to abdicate because he was caught embezzling public money. Not quite Thai or Nepali king madness but scandalous compared to other European monarchies.

      Delete
    7. I would also add that the Thai monarchy is protected by the powerful Military which till today has used the 'King's name' to stage multiple coups, and they would go all out to protect their figurehead.
      The lese majeste laws are also pretty draconian, imposing jail sentences of up to 12 years I believe. With such conditions, it's no surprise King Vajiralongkorn can get away with it.

      Delete
    8. Autocracy, Democracy, I don't think either can guarantee good governance. They have been multiple instances of corruption and abuses in both systems. It's still challenging as ever in finding/creating good leaders. The main advantage Democracy has over Autocracy, is that it 'legally' allows the people to kick a government out without bloodshed.

      Delete
    9. The Thai monarchy is the laughing stock of Asia, but what shocks me is the way so many Thai people suspend their judgment of their king's behaviour and worship him as if he is beyond reproach. That's scary.

      Delete
    10. Sometimes I forget that the monarchy is greatly intertwined with the state religion, and a lot of working class people are religious. Like in the UK technically the Archbishop of Canterbury runs the Church of England, but as Monarch Prince Charles is also head of the Church of England, even though he's probably not qualified. There's that phrase "divine right of kings", where religion is used to enforce the popularity of a monarch. In a secular society or among secular peoples in the UK, it has less hold.

      Delete
  2. Good luck changing the money. I wonder how that will work or how long it will take. The monarch has been forced to abdicate before, like the case of King Edward VIII who had to abdicate or parliament would resign. But unless Charles does something similar to Prince Andrew a lot of Brits would think abdication is overly harsh. Also it makes me wonder when William will take over, he's already 40, and if Charles lives at least another 10 years, then he'd be in his 50s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh the notes & coins currently in circulation with the Queen on them will still be legal tender, they'll just start printing new notes with King Charles on them now. Many people are now using cards and digital payment anyway so I think there'll just be a sense of novelty when we get hold of the new notes. You raise a good point about Edward VIII but those were extraordinary circumstances about him wanting to marry an American divorcee. This succession was planned way in advance given that the Queen's death was kinda predictable given her age, thus the plans for successions were put in place years ago and questions like, "what are we doing about Camilla?" have been answered a long time ago in anticipation of it of course. Charles has waited an awfully long time to become king, he's going to wanna enjoy the throne for a while before handing over to his son.

      Delete
  3. Seems to me that that parent was bragging that the child was learning different languages. When you suggested that the child may be not smart enough to master the languages (hence, no need to worry about Precious being confused) he was indignant. Parents like to tell their children they can be anything they want to be. No. Highly unlikely Precious is going to be an astronaut. Also, quite unlikely Precious is going to master multiple languages all at once and end up confused.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Little Precious is barely two years old! I knew that this parent was in a very multilingual, multicultural environment anyway given the nature of his marriage and where he lives, but my point was simple: it's not what you do as a parent, it's how smart Precious is. If Precious is intelligent, she can do anything even if you're a terrible parent. If Precious is stupid, then no matter what you do, your efforts would be in vain. Seems like common sense to me but boy it caused so much offence.

      Delete
  4. You can't fix stupid. Then again, Precious may be a savant. Either way, no need to worry at this point 🤷, Daddy. Toilet train Precious for now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with you, being blunt and real about it. You can have a donkey or you can have a pedigree race horse. Only by challenging the child do you then know their limits. Heck, maybe the child might even surprise you by outperforming your expectations! You think the kid might have their limits at two languages when the kid might be easily fluent in five! It is the parents putting on, aptly named, "kids gloves" approach to their child. It is like your story of challenging your nephew to economics and not stick within the box but think out of the box. And if they cant, then they cant. You know their limits. No need to be afraid and be a Shrodingers(sp?) Cat scenario. Do it and find out! What if this what if that, im afraid my child this that. Open the box already!
    ps. The parents are being defensive about it, dont lose too much sleep about it. Remember that Jack Neo movie, "I am not stupid" aka Xiao Hai Bu Ben or something like that. They refuse to believe they might have a donkey and do not want to admit it. Let them be

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh what frustrated me about these interactions on Facebook is that people get so upset when you challenge their point of view and that's why I'd rather stay away from such discussions on social media. It's just not worth the aggravation and it is not a rewarding process.

      Delete