Now, we’ve all had experiences like this, right? Sometimes we are on the other end in which someone is trying to convince us that we are wrong. One thing that takes places during such times is called “psychological reactance.” It is a term coined from the field of social psychology. It occurs when Person A is trying to limit Person B’s freedom in some way (e.g., Person A tells Person B she is wrong or must take a particular action). Then Person B reacts in a way, usually emotionally-driven, to reinstate his/her freedom. In the case of an argument, Person B’s original views are likely to grow in opposition to Person A’s arguments rather than become weaker or switching sides altogether. It reminds me of an old saying, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

You can see this play out politics quite a bit. In a debate, how often do you see a candidate switch his/her position to that of their opposition? Think of all of the arguments that you’ve been in – how often do you completely switch to the other person’s point of view? Do you ever find yourself arguing even more vigorously for your original point of view? This is called polarization – how arguments can push people’s positions further away from each other.

So, we must be wary when we get into arguments – we often have the exact opposite of our intended effect. Moreover, arguments can cause rifts in relationships. Relationships are key to our own happiness (and to that of others). Thus, in trying to be right were are often not being effective. Since our relationships our inextricably linked to our own happiness, we can really shoot ourselves in the foot by trying to “win” an argument.

But something else struck me in the argument that occurred with my friend. I started viewing her as being stubborn. Then I suddenly realized something – stubborn requires two to tango. She cannot be stubborn without me also being stubborn. Stubborn, by definition, requires two forces in opposition (or perhaps one irresistible force and one immovable object!). Instead of asking why my friend was being so stubborn, it dawned on me what I should be asking instead is: Why am I being so stubborn? 

I’ve posted on this topic in previous blogs – we can’t control other people, but only our own behavior (and that can be quite a challenge anyway!). Trying to control others can often result in psychological reactance, polarization, and damaged relationships. When we start viewing others as stubborn for not yielding to us in some way (e.g., changing their behavior, their point of view), we should instead turn the spotlight on ourselves and ask ourselves why we are being stubborn.

There is a line from an old U2 song in which Bono sang, “I can’t change the world, but I can change the world in me.” I always liked that line. Now I have a new way in which to apply it so I can liberate myself from my own hard-headedness. Perhaps the next time you catch yourself in an argument and viewing someone as stubborn, you can turn the spotlight around. Sometimes the best way to “win” a tug-of-war is to not pick up the rope in the first place. It’s a choice we all have if we just take a moment to realize it.

Mindfulness has been around for thousands of years and is a core component of many Eastern spiritual and wisdom traditions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism. (It should be noted that other spiritual traditions teach aspects of mindfulness including Sufism, Kabalism, and contemplative Christianity.) Importantly, mindfulness is not a religion in itself but rather it is an approach to living that is embedded in many spiritual and religious traditions. So, one need not be a believer in some faith to practice mindfulness but, if you are a follower of a particular faith, a mindfulness practice can easily be subsumed within your faith and actually enhance your spiritual life. 

Practitioners using a mindful approach to living have been benefiting from it for thousands of years, but it is only in about the past decade or so that Western psychology has started studying the benefits of mindfulness in earnest. As the number of books on mindfulness mushrooms, you will find different approaches emphasized in both the study and practice of mindfulness. Some take a more, I guess one could say “New Age” approach, others emphasize the teachings of Buddhism and still others delve into the neuroscience behind how a mindfulness practice changes the brain. 

One thing you will find with mindfulness is there is no one “right way” to study or practice. Both Eastern spiritual teachings as well as the findings from Western science advocate how transformative mindfulness can be. I’ve always liked an “East Meets West” approach because I find that both offer insights that I find both fascinating and useful. I’ve read two such books recently that both offer this approach: Buddha’s Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love, and Wisdom by Rick Hanson, Ph.D. and Richard Mendius, M.D. and Fully Present: The Science, Art, and Practice of Mindfulness by Susan L. Smalley, Ph.D. and Diana Winston. 

In both of these books, the authors explain what mindfulness is, the science behind how it works, and how it can be practiced to diminish negative emotions and enhance happiness. I would say that Buddha’s Brain gets a little more technical with regard to the neuroscience of how mindfulness works (as the title implies) and Fully Present offers more practical, day-to-day strategies on how to use mindfulness (included a number of guided mindfulness meditations that you can practice on your own). If you are new to mindfulness or just curious, I would recommend, of these two books, starting with Fully Present. But if you enjoy this book and the general approach, you might then try reading Buddha’s Brain. Just an FYI, I listened to the audiobooks for both of these works and found the readers equally engaging. 

Liberating ourselves from these loops can be quite a challenge. Sometimes they feel like quicksand – the more we struggle against them, the more they suck us in! Here are a few tips that can help you deal with these negative thought loops and their associated emotions.

1.  Recognize we are in the loop. Einstein famously said, “A problem cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created it.” In order to address the problem of negative thoughts loops, we first must recognize that we are in one. Oftentimes the strong negative feeling, “Jeez, I sure am stressed out!” can be used as a cue to help us realize we are caught in the loop.

2.  Accept we are in the loop. This does not mean that we are saying that we enjoy being in this loop that is contributing to our emotional distress. We are not talking about putting lipstick on a pig here. Still, we need to call a spade a spade. If we are in the loop, there’s no sense in denying it. In fact, denying that we are in the loop can actually increase our distress (I like the phrase “What we resist persists” that I heard from Eckhart Tolle).

3.  Explore the thoughts in the loop. Are they true? This is different than the acceptance in Step #2 above. We need to accept the feelings that we have (e.g., anxious) and the fact that we are having looping thoughts (e.g., I think I could fail this chemistry mid-term). However, we should step back an examine the content of the loop – is there something underneath? Are there deeper, more troubling thoughts that are really at the heart of our distress? For example, I might notice that I’m extremely stressed that I might fail an upcoming mid-term. Is that just the tip of the iceberg? Perhaps there is a series of thoughts such as:

• If I fail the mid-term, I will fail the class.
• If I fail the class, my GPA will drop.
• If my GPA drops, I won’t get into a good graduate school.
• If I don’t get into a good graduate school, I won’t be able to get a good job…or a job.
• I will be stuck leaving in a roach-infested apartment, working a minimum-wage, dead-end job, living paycheck to paycheck.
• My parents and friends will view me as a failure. I will be a big disappointment. I will be a failure.

Ah, with this line of thinking, no wonder I am so stressed about that chemistry mid-term! Importantly, just because we think something, doesn’t make it true. Now, is it really true that if I fail a mid-term that I will be a failure for life? What’s the evidence for this? What’s the evidence against it? Oftentimes disconnections with reality are at the root of distressing thoughts. When we correct such thought distortions (and replace the old, distorted thoughts with the new ones), we will decrease the negative feelings.

4. Is there something we can about it? For instance, if we worried about failing an upcoming midterm, have we studied enough for it? If I think something that I said hurt a friend’s feelings, can I just check in with that friend or give him/her an apology?

5. Pair the loop with breathing.  If we have done the above steps and we still just can’t shake the distressing thoughts, here’s a strategy that can be tremendously powerful (I use this one myself a lot). As soon as you recognize that you are in the loop, try to transform a liability into an advantage. Use the negative thoughts as a reminder to engage in relaxed breathing. Our breath is with us wherever we go. Usually it is an unconscious process, but if we focus our attention on it, it can become transformational. Our breath can serve to anchor us in the present moment – the only moment we are ever in. Then, in a sense, our negative thought loops become a cue…a reminder…for us to do relaxed breathing. And what a useful cue because we those thoughts keep popping up! Now, if we want to really turn things on their head, negative thought loops are incorporated into a broader spiritual practice. Indeed, they become a central component…that we might even learn to be grateful for…because they are a critical component to our spiritual growth.

Like most things in life, liberating ourselves from negative thought loops takes practice. What I’ve described above can be difficult at first, but keep practicing. Over time, you will improve at using these approaches which will help you find both relief from suffering and greater peace of mind. And we can’t have peace on Earth without peace of mind. Happy Holidays to all!

Is the universe conscious? What’s the connection between mind and brain? Does the brain dictate behavior? What is the nature of time? Wow! This is a book I’ve hoped would be written for a long time. Two “heavyweights” duke it out in War of the Worldviews: Science Vs. Spirituality. Deepak Chopra is in the spirituality corner and Leonard Mlodinow is in the science/materialism corner. If you haven’t run across Chopra, he’s an MD, written over 60 books on spirituality and related topics, noted presenter, and been interviewed on countless TV shows (e.g., Oprah). Leonard Mlodinow has a PhD in physics from UC Berkeley, is a theoretical physicist at Caltech,  and is the author of several books, including one with Stephen Hawking.

I’ve always liked exploring these issues as I’m drawn to both science and spirituality. Although I knew of Chopra, I never saw him make a formal presentation or read any of his books until, a few years ago, I had the opportunity to see him present at a psychology conference. Although I was greatly impressed with his knowledge, intelligence, and oratory skills, I wished there had been a quantum physicist or other renowned scientist in the room to debate him on some of his assertions and views. As bright and knowledgeable as he is (and whether you disagree with his views on spirituality, there’s no denying that the guy is extremely bright and well-read), I know there are folks equally bright and knowledgeable who vehemently disagree with Chopra.

With this book, my wish has been granted! The book is organized so that both Mlodinow and Chopra get their turn answering a question like, “Is the universe conscious?” and they take turns as to who goes first on each topic. Also, they allow some space to respond to one another’s assertions. While the writing can get a little technical at times (actually, I listened to the audiobook, which was read by the authors), one can still get the gist of their arguments and each worldview gets strongly represented.

This book will probably not change your opinion if you are firmly in one camp or the other. In psychology, this is known as the “confirmation bias” – we tend to give greater weight to information that supports views we already hold and discount evidence that is contrary to what we already believe.  Aside from the fact that this book probably won’t change established views, it is engaging, entertaining, and illuminating no matter on which side of the fence you stand. Try reading with a very open mind and just see if you can come to appreciate both sides better. Perhaps if we can all do that, we can all learn to become more accepting of one another.

I get the feeling that both Chopra and Mlodinow each completed the book scratching their heads at one another and thinking, “How does this man NOT get it?!?”. You can sense their frustration and, at times, exasperation with one another. But I think that’s what makes the book more fun and engaging – the men truly disagree with one another on a fundamental level.

What might have made this book even better is if both Chopra and Mlodinow had written an “afterwards” summarizing the areas in which they agree, disagree, and what they each learned from the other. Still, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in exploring questions about God, the Universe, and Everything. If you are in a book club or can get some of your friends to read it and discuss afterwards, you might have quite a lively, engaging exchange of ideas.

Now, as promised, I have to tell you this story that relates to War of the Worldviews that made me say, “Get OUT!” because I could hardly believe it happened.

I was listening to the audiobook as I was jogging around my neighborhood. It was dusk, about 65 degrees outside, and a perfect night to be outdoors in Austin, Texas. I was listening to this part in the book in which Mlodinow was responding to an analogy that Chopra had made about neurons in our brains being like musical notes and our conscious mind being like the piano that plays those musical notes. So, Chopra was asserting that the musical notes (neurons in our brain) cannot be brought to life without a piano (our conscious mind).  In the words of Chopra, “You cannot play ‘Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star’ on a piano without a piano…But if somebody told you that the piano composed ’Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star,’ the statement would make no sense. ” Mlodinow takes issue with this analogy noting that, if someone told you that the song ‘Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star’ was composed in an immaterial realm instead of by a person, that would make no sense either. At the heart of their disagreement represented in this ‘Twinkle, Twinkle’ analogy is whether consciousness exists outside of the individual. Is there More?

So, as I’m listening to Mlodinow criticize Chopra’s ‘Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star’ analogy and all its implications, I rounded a corner in my neighborhood. There, on this picture-perfect night, I saw a mother in the middle of the insulated street hitting a tennis ball with her 10-year-old daughter. Her son, who was about 13, was standing on the hood of an SUV playing his saxophone. This scene was unusual to begin with…but then I noticed the familiar tune the boy was playing on his sax. I took out my earbuds to take it all in. Sure enough, he was playing…on his sax…on the hood of an SUV…’Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star.’ I’m NOT kidding. What are the odds?!? The timing, the message – what could all of this mean?

And what ARE the odds? The scientist and skeptic in me can quickly debunk how this is a form of confirmation bias and how most people listening to this particular audiobook while jogging didn’t have this same experience. Also, if you take all the people listening to audiobooks or podcasts while jogging (millions of people over a decade, lets say), there are bound to be many, many coincidences that occur. Is mine just one of those coincidences? Or did God, or some Cosmic Consciousness, decide It wanted to send me some message? Honestly, I’m not sure. But this I DO know: Life is full of beauty, wonder, and mystery. This is something we all should try to appreciate and embrace no matter what our worldview is. And, if we can all learn to do this, this can unify us with one another and make the world a better place for us all.

From such choices, suffering can be experienced in many forms:

1. Guilt feelings for knowing that we’ve done wrong.
2. Worry that we’ll get discovered or caught.
3. Emotional pain caused by the knowledge that we’ve harmed others.
4. Negative feelings caused by the repercussions of our actions if (or when?) we get caught or discovered.

The simple yet powerful solution to this type of suffering? Refrain from doing what we know to be wrong in the first place! For example, we don’t need to worry whether we’ll be busted by the IRS for cheating on our taxes IF…we don’t cheat on our taxes. Whatever benefits or pleasures that we get from making these “wrong” actions are likely to be far outweighed by the negative feelings and repercussions elicited from making such choices.

Although this sounds like a simple maxim to live by, why don’t we let this principle guide our lives more often? When we see a “truth” like the one the Dalai Lama espouses (and he didn’t create this truth, it exists on its own), we need to reflect upon it frequently, perhaps even make it a form of meditation. As we become more mindful of this truth, we are then able to internalize it and let it guide our choices and actions more readily. The effect is that we suffer less and achieve a greater sense of peace and well-being in our lives.

Ah, I knew there was a reason I kept all of my old issues of Scientific American Mind magazine! While browsing through them recently, I stumbled upon a Nov/Dec 2010 article with the tantalizing title of “What Makes a Good Parent?” by psychologist and researcher Dr. Robert Epstein. How’d I miss this before?! This was like finding the Holy Grail! Epstein and his team developed an online survey of parenting skills (accessible at https://MyParentingSkills.com) with survey items based on published studies of what skills are associated with positive parenting outcomes as well as input by 11 renowned parenting experts. Epstein gathered survey data from over 2000 parents and then analyzed the results and was able to determine which parenting skills produced good outcomes.

Now, this begs the question of what are we defining as the “good” outcomes that we are trying to achieve as parents. While not getting too specific with the definitions in this article, Epstein researched which parenting practices produced the strongest outcomes in the form of “better relationships between parent and child and happier, healthier, better functioning children.”

Here’s the Top 10 List of competencies/skills that Dr. Epstein and his team of researchers identified that produce “good” parenting outcomes (this list is quoted directly from Epstein’s article in the Nov/Dec 2010 issue of Scientific American Mind):

1. Love and Affection – You support and accept the child, are physically affectionate, and spend quality one-on-one time together.

2. Stress Management – You take steps to reduce stress for yourself and your child, practice relaxation techniques and promote positive interpretations of events.

3. Relationship Skills – You maintain a healthy relationship with your spouse, significant other or co-parent and model effective relationship skills with other people.

4. Autonomy and Independence. You treat your child with respect and encourage him or her to become self-sufficient and self-reliant. 

5. Education and Learning - You promote and model learning and provide educational opportunities for your child.

6. Life Skills – You provide for your child, have a steady income and plan for the future.

7. Behavior Management -You make extensive use of positive reinforcement and punish only when other methods of managing behavior have failed.

8. Health – You model a healthy lifestyle and good habits, such as regular exercise and proper nutrition, for your child.

9. Religion - You support spiritual or religious development and participate in spiritual or religious activities.

10. Safety – You take precautions to protect your child and maintain awareness of the child’s activities and friends.

What is fascinating about Epstein’s findings (which surprised him and his team as well) is that 2 of top 3 competencies/skills (stress management and relationship skills) don’t directly affect the child, only indirectly. However, even though the influence is indirect, the effects are very powerful. Too many parents spend inordinate amounts of time focused on education and learning, earning more income, or developing and implementing elaborate behavior management plans with the idea that these are the best ways to help their kids to become happy and successful in life. 

A clear message from Epstein’s research and this article is that, first and foremost, we must be present to give our kids love, affection, and undivided attention. But it is also critical that we take care of our own needs – to have our own lives in balance so that our stress levels are managed effectively. On a related note, we must also nurture the relationship with our significant other. This is wonderful modeling for kids.  Also, as a couple, if the relationship is strong, there is greater happiness and less stress within the family system. Kids pick up the stress, and the happiness, of their parents. 

Hopefully Dr. Epstein’s findings are as illuminating to you as they have been for me!

Colvin eloquently presents the research findings and corroborating stories to debunk the notion that there is some special innate talent that separates top performers from average Joes (and Joannas). Whether we are talking chess grandmasters, piano virtuosos, memory whizzes, Scrabble champions, or elite athletes, study after study consistently finds that there are not any discernible, quantifiable abilities that characterize the most adept performers.

Lets just take Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, for example. Clearly he created many works of genius. This is not in question. The question is, did he inherently possess skills that are one in a billion? Colvin demonstrates that a close an examination of Mozart’s life yields a resounding ”no” to that.  Wolfgang’s father, Leopold, was a fairly accomplished musician and composer in his own right, but was also an instructor. He began Wolfgang’s musical instruction at a very young age – around 3 – and Wolfgang trained (or was trained?) for countless hours. Although many astounding accomplishments have been attributed to Mozart’s precocity (e.g., composing at age 5),  his first work that was considered “genius” was not completed until he was 21 years of age. That’s after 18 YEARS of very rigorous practice! Now, what would have been truly exceptional and an unmatched level of innate genius is if Mozart had composed The Magic Flute at age 5. And in that regard, he didn’t even come close…and no one else has either.

Whether we are talking about Tiger Woods, Marie Curie, Wayne Gretzky, Joshua Bell, Steffi Graf, or Bobby Fischer, the common thread among these…and any…top performer is (drum roll, please): deliberate practice. Practicing…meaning just doing the activity for many hours over time…does not improve our performance much after a certain point. Deliberate practice is the tough stuff – the boring, “grinding it out” aspect of practice that the majority of people avoid. It is practicing scales or other specific finger movements on the violin over and over again with basically no built-in rewards. It is hitting the same drop shot in tennis practice hundreds of times just to gain small, almost imperceptible improvements. In martial arts, it might be practicing the same submission move hundreds or thousands of times until it is instinctive. Moreover, these hours of deliberate practice are done under the guidance of top instructors or coaches  from early on to guide and mold the “prodigy.”

Colvin points out that there are some chess grandmasters who have average IQs, Scrabble champions with below average verbal IQs, and memory experts who possess only average memories. Regarding the training of memory, Colvin chronicles how one college student performed no better than average on standardized tests of memory prior to practicing a specific memory task. When asked to repeat a string of orally presented digits, this student could initially only recall about 7 digits, which is a typical amount. But with ongoing, deliberate practice, this individual was able to accurately repeat a string of 82 digits!

A big nod to the research findings chronicled in Talent is Overrated comes from the pioneering work of Swedish psychologist Dr. Anders Ericsson who is one of the world’s foremost experts on expertise. And he’s only an expert on this subject through deliberate practice – his expertise is not innate! Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers is also partly inspired by Ericsson’s groundbreaking work. To become an expert, a top-performer, Ericsson found that we need about 10,000 hours of training. Gladwell dubbed this the “10,000 Hour Rule.” That comes to 20 hours per week for 10 years. If we put that amount of time in, we WILL become experts at whatever endeavor we have chosen. But again, it isn’t JUST doing the 10,000 hours that will make us experts – as if that isn’t challenging enough. To truly become elite at an activity, a very large portion of these hours must come in the form of the deliberate practice. This type of painstaking, grinding practice is what most people avoid.

Now, this is not to say that genetics or innate attributes don’t come into play at all. I mean, a guy who is 5’10″ isn’t going to be able to play center in the NBA or become an NFL lineman. Also, some people might have a certain innate attributes (e.g., strength, speed, intelligence) that might help them excel at an activity more quickly than their peers who are average in these same attributes. However, over time the deliberate practice will easily trump innate ability.

For the sake of argument, let’s compare a girl with tremendous innate musical ability at age 5 (let’s call her Sarah) with another girl (also age 5) of average innate musical ability (let’s call her Mary). Although very “talented,” Sarah never really dedicates herself to practicing a musical instrument. She just takes a few piano lessons here and there, sings along to her favorite artists, does some karaoke, but never really dedicates herself to any one instrument. Mary, on the other hand, takes up piano at age 5 and puts in 10,000 hours of practice (much of it deliberate) over the next 10 years under the tutelage of a masterful teacher . Now Sarah and Mary are both 15, and they sit down to for a little musical competition at the piano. Who can play which songs competently? Who’s going to win this friendly competition? Despite Sarah’s greater innate musical ability, Mary’s practice is going to totally blow Sarah out of the water (er, off the piano bench). Mary will be playing Mozart and Sarah will be playing Jingle Bells. If we switched out athletic or mathematical ability for musical ability, we would see the same results.

What we have to remember is that it is impossible to distinguish innate ability from an acquired skill. Joey, the four-year old who seems like such the natural athlete on his first organized soccer team, has likely been throwing, hitting, and kicking balls around regularly with his parents (both of whom were former competitive athletes) since he was 2. Plus, he’s been getting LOTS of encouragement and positive reinforcement for his athletics from his parents and relatives. PLUS he tries to keep up with his older siblings, who are also athletes. So, by the time Joey starts his first soccer practice, he might have already had hundreds of hours of athletic practice in one form or another. When we see Joey doing so well at his soccer practices, we don’t know this back-story behind his “gifts.”

So, we have the good news/bad news from the research on expertise. The good news: Virtually anyone can be an expert at anything he or she chooses, providing that the he/she put in countless hours of deliberate practice over the course of many years (and with high-quality instructors). It’s mainly a matter of choice. Well, cost does come into play for those high-caliber instructors!  The bad news: It is a grind to become an expert AND, if we aren’t an expert at something, we can’t really just use the excuse that “I have no artistic talent” or the like. It has been said that there are no shortcuts to success, and the same can be said for becoming an expert.

What might be a more of a “gift” than innate talent is an internal drive to become elite at an activity – to endure the grind of countless hours of deliberate practice over the course of years. There are plenty of tiger parents who coerce their children into working these countless hours to become great, but I think this comes at a price. The child who passionately pursues an activity year after year because he or she loves it so much, now THAT is a rarity for sure.

First, before I jump into this topic, I want to apologize for the long delay since my last blog. I recently had a third child, so it’s difficult to keep up! My aim is to post weekly, so I promise to get back on track.

I listened the audiobook version of Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother a few months ago. Ms. Chua narrated the book, and she was able to make these very personal stories come to life. I have waited a couple of months to write this book review because the book stirred so many reactions within me that I hardly knew where to start.

If you missed the media storm that followed the release of this book, it is a memoir of how Ms. Chua, a Chinese-American, raised her two daughters as a “tiger mother.” Basically, she was cracking the whip from day one on both of her daughters to excel in certain facets of life. I deliberately say “certain facets” because, while Ms. Chua emphasizes that her girls be top-notch in academics and at their respective musical instruments (eldest daughter,Sophia, the piano; youngest daughter, Lulu, the violin), she did not seem as concerned that they are advanced in their peer relationships, computer, gaming, athletic, dancing, or composing their own original musical works.

Ms. Chua is quite accomplished in her own right. She received her undergraduate degree at Harvard and went to Harvard law school. She is a Yale law school professor and authored two well-received books on international affairs prior to writing Battle Hymn. Her husband, Jed, also a Yale law school professor and author, receives relatively little attention in this memoir. Inferring from her description within the book, he is the more calm, stable, supportive, and easygoing parent. Yet I was curious as to why he allowed Ms. Chua to push her own agenda with her daughters, which ended up causing great turmoil with Lulu, and didn’t strongly intervene.

One of Ms. Chua’s primary goals as a parent, as she explains, is to raise both of her daughters in a strict, highly-involved manner to ensure that they both were top-performers academically and musically. According to the Chinese “tiger parenting” approach, children are very resilient, parents always know what is best for their children, and children should obey their parents at all times. Thus, tiger parents believe that children can endure the rigors of a strict, sometimes harsh, upbringing and ultimately thrive because of it. She describes how Western parents often coddle their children and parent from a position based on the presumed weakness or delicacy of children. Ms. Chua does make clear that not all Chinese or Asian parents are “tiger parents” and not all Western parents are…pussycats? Wimps? There are tiger parents in all cultures.

So, first off I have to hand it to Ms. Chua for:

1. Being honest and having the courage (or business acumen?) to write this book.
2. Writing an extremely thought-provoking and engaging memoir of how she raised her children
3. Creating such a controversy around her parenting style that it created a best-seller and got her on the talk-show circuit.
4. Showing significant love and devotion to both of her daughters. While I disagree with the manner that she shows it sometimes, I have no doubt that Ms. Chua loves her daughters dearly and would do anything for them.
5. Having way more hours in her day than I do! My God, the woman teaches at Yale law school, wrote two other books prior to Battle Hymn, personally supervised much of her daughters musical training, and drove them to countless music lessons, competitions, and performances. The woman must not need sleep!

Although Ms. Chua clearly states that she is not intending to write a “how to” parenting guide, she chronicles many of her “tiger parent” philosophies and values. It is apparent that she believes in the effectiveness of tiger parenting, otherwise she wouldn’t have used this approach as a parent.

As a tiger mother, Ms. Chua would not allow her daughters to:

• Watch TV
• Play video games
• Have play dates
• Have sleep overs
• Earn less than an “A” in their school work

Also, each daughter had to become a virtuoso at a musical instrument. Her eldest daughter was required to play piano, and her youngest daughter started on the piano but was moved to the violin after a couple of years. Each daughter was obligated to practice several hours daily, even when the family went on vacations to various places around the world. Ms. Chua scoffed at how Western parents would only have their children practice a music instrument 15-30 minutes per day and still consider that practice. She required her children to put their noses to the grindstone for hours per day no matter what.

Although Ms. Chua’s eldest daughter, Sophia, responded fairly well to to her tiger parenting,Lulu was very oppositional from the start. Ms. Chua described how the struggles to get Lulu to practice violin escalated from frequent arguments into recurrent, intense verbal fights as Lulu entered adolescence.  Lulu even showed some signs of depression (or at least intense feelings of anger and sadness) – probably due to the cumulative effects of these battles.

Ms. Chua is the product of tiger parenting, and she has, at least by some measures, been extremely successful. What’s interesting is that her husband, Jed, has been just as successful (although not the success and fame from writing a memoir like Battle Hymn). In fact, he was hired as a Yale law school professor before Ms. Chua. He was not the product of tiger parenting. Although not a viruoso at a musical instrument, he seemed to really enjoy his childhood – leisurely summer vacations, playing with friends, etc. So, what does this mean that he achieved his success without tiger parenting? Hmm…

It’s difficult to tell whether Ms. Chua was exaggerating at times just for the effect, but some of her statements caused me to cringe because they are just wrong (from a factual and not just a value sense). Here’s an example: “What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you are good at it. To get good at anything, you have to work, and children on their own never want to work.”

For real? First of all, one doesn’t have to be “good” at something to have fun. That’s completely wrong. Reflect upon this yourself. Did you ever try a new sport, video game, musical instrument, dance, etc. and have fun without ever really being too good at it? Of course you have and so have I! One doesn’t have to be an expert to have fun at an activity. What IS often true is that if the difficulty level of the activity is calibrated to our skill level, it is more likely to induce a state of flow (get in the zone). “Flow” is a term coined by psychologist Dr. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. He found that, when we are in a state of flow (which could be from an endless variety of activities such as playing a musical instrument, a sport, video games, painting, etc.), we experience extreme levels of happiness. In fact, we are so enraptured in such moments that we don’t even realize we are happy until we reflect upon it afterwards! Now, if you are trying to play Mozart on piano and your skill level is only at Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star, you WON’T be having fun. However, as long as the difficulty of the activity matched to your skill level, you can achieve a state of flow and thus have fun. For example, one of the most enjoyable activities I’ve ever done was surfing in Hawaii. Although I’m a total novice,  I had a peak life experience.

Now, to be REALLY good at an activity…to be elite, one does have to work. I agree with Ms. Chua’s statement on that. However, her statement that “…children on their own never want to work” is incorrect. There are plenty of top athletes, musicians, artists, scientists, and others who have become top performers without someone coercing them to work hard. The parents of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Vincent Van Gogh, Bruce Lee, Jimmy Hendrix, or Georgia O’Keefe did not force them to work hard. Sometimes parents do have to coerce their kids to work hard, especially when trying to get them to perfect skill fundamentals and nascences (e.g., Tiger Woods, Mozart, Andre Agassi). However, it is not the case that children never work hard on their own. Moreover, I believe that it is better that the drive to work hard comes internally rather than externally. If it is only through coercion that we get children to work hard, what happens when the coercion isn’t there? Coercive tactics can really backfire too, as they did with Lulu. Lulu became an accomplished violinist but there was immeasurable suffering along the way. Plus, you can never get those childhood years back.

It is true that performing at an elite level offers many rewards such states of flow, accolades from others, prestige, scholarships, possibly a career, and so on. However, we need to remember that there are opportunity costs involved. Borrowing from the field of economics, an opportunity cost (thanks, Wikipedia) “is the cost of any activity measured in terms of the value of the best alternative that is not chosen (that is foregone)”. So, in order to achieve excellence within in a particular domain, we must sacrifice other potentially rewarding pursuits.

Looking at the rigors of the musical training that Ms. Chua required in terms of opportunity costs, a mistaken assumption of hers is that play is not beneficial for kids. However, research shows that play offers kids many benefits including improved social and cognitive skills as well as a reduction of stress and anxiety. She also denigrates video games as a waste of time but research indicates that many video games provide benefits such as improved visual, spatial, and problem-solving skills as well as becoming an effective team player (a much valued skill in our increasingly networked society).  A wonderful book on how video games can bring out the best in us as individuals and as a society is Dr. Jane McGonigal’s Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World.

Ms. Chua made another statement that caused me to believe that she misunderstands something fundamental to what leads to happiness in life. She was arguing with her eldest daughter, Sophia and trying to impress upon Sophia that it is an honor to be the eldest child in the family. Ms. Chua states, “The problem is that Western culture doesn’t see it that way. In Disney movies, the ‘good’ daughter always has to have a breakdown and realize that life is not all about following rules and winning prizes, and then take off her clothes and run into the ocean or something like that. But that’s just Disney’s way of appealing to all the people who never win any prizes. Winning prizes gives you opportunities, and that’s freedom – not running into the ocean.”

Wow. Ms. Chua has a lot left to learn from Disney. True freedom doesn’t come from winning more prizes - it comes from liberating oneself from the need to win prizes. This is not a cop-out or just “appealing to all the people who never win any prizes.” These are deep spiritual teachings that come from Taoism (whose roots are, ironically, Chinese), Buddhism, Christianity, and probably every spiritual tradition.  According to the Four Noble Truths within Buddhism, most of our suffering is caused by clinging or craving (e.g., trying to win prizes). Buddhists seek to liberate themselves from this type of suffering by following the Noble Eightfold Path.

Research from the field of positive psychology from psychologists such as Dr. Martin Seligman, Dr. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and Dr. Sonja Lyubomirsky also support the idea that winning prizes isn’t the key to happiness. There are countless of miserable people who have won lots of prizes – including Oscars, Pulitzers, Nobles, Grammys…you name it. Just look at the “prize” that wealth buys. Beyond the poverty level, there is basically no correlation between wealth and happiness. Moreover, an analysis of the happiest countries in the world reveals that the richest countries per capita financially are not the happiest ones.

Prizes don’t make us happy in a deep, lasting sense. In fact, they can tether our happiness to performance – we are only happy when we are “winning” (thanks, Charlie Sheen) prizes. This is a vulnerable position in which to be. We could be winning one day, but then we might be losing the next. More importantly, if we are winning, then this necessarily means that others are losing. Because our happiness is inextricably linked with the happiness of others then, in a sense, if they suffer unhappiness because of losing, that unhappiness can spread within a social network, ultimately even diminishing our own happiness as the “winners.”

The best things in life are truly free. They are not contingent upon winning prizes. Research indicates that about 70% our happiness comes from our relationships. Think of your own best times in life. How many of those are about winning prizes? How many are about time with your significant other, children, or close friends going camping, hiking, to a concert, to the beach, or just having conversations over coffee or dinner? And how about appreciating the beauty of nature as another means to experience the sublime? I can honestly say that my happiest, most transcendent times in life have nothing to do with winning prizes. 

Ms. Chua might counter that I haven’t worked hard enough to win better or enough prizes! However, whether looking deeply at spiritual teachings, our own lives, or research findings from the field of psychology, it is clear that true freedom or happiness in life doesn’t come from winning prizes.

Just to cover this base, the type of liberation I’m talking about doesn’t mean we won’t work hard to accomplish goals. However, our working and striving will come from a pure place and be free of the fear that comes from constantly focusing on the prize instead of the enjoyment of the activity itself.

At the end of her memoir, Ms. Chua doesn’t offer any  epiphanies or important life lessons. She basically remains unapologetic about her behavior regarding Lulu…kind of “the end justifies the means.” Fortunately, her girls don’t hold it against their mother and, I’m certain, are wonderful young ladies. But this doesn’t prove that Ms. Chua’s parenting methods are effective or desirable. Correlation doesn’t equal causation. I would have bet my bottom dollar that even if Ms. Chua hadn’t coerced her daughters into countess hours of musical practice, they would still have grown into accomplished, hard-working, responsible, respectful, and “successful” teenagers and young women. Thus, they might be successes now despite Ms. Chua’s insistence on rigorous musical training and other coercive parenting practices, not because of them. And let’s not forget the parenting contributions of her husband, Jed, who seemed to consistently convey the message that he completely loved and accepted his daughters whether they were musical virtuosos or not. They might not have endured their mother’s tiger parenting without him as an anchor.

In sum, the whole idea of “winning prizes” seems to be what motivates Ms. Chua’s tiger parenting in the first place. To me, parenting, like life, isn’t some type of competition in which our primary goal is trying to be the best…to out-perform others and win the most and best prizes.  That is not the path to happiness and, in my opinion, not the message we want to convey to our children. The path to happiness is to realize that life is a gift, and you are the prize. And running into the ocean? Well, that’s embracing and celebrating this prize. You are it! Thanks, Disney, for trying to teach and remind us of this truth. Ms. Chua, the ocean is waiting for you – and for all of us – to celebrate our prize!

As a parent of three children (boys ages 8, 4, and 4 weeks), I realize that there is a lot of pressure in trying to do what is best for our kids. However, I do believe it can get out-of-hand sometimes…bordering on ridiculous. 

Let’s take a more critical look at these “elite” preschools, for instance. A common mistake that we all make in life is thinking that correlation equals causation. That is, just because many students from some of these elite preschools go on to other prestigious prep schools and colleges does not mean that the preschool necessarily caused this outcome.

For instance, I could give a trivia test to 1000 people of all ages and show that there is a significant relationship between the size of a person’s toe and their score on my trivia test. Would that mean that big toes were responsible for people doing well on my trivia test? Of course not! Bigger toes generally mean that the person is older (not a young kiddo). Thus, the accumulated knowledge that comes with age (which is correlated with size) is what helped the person do better on my hypothetical trivia test. 

Similarly, these elite preschools go through quite a rigorous and lengthy application process. Many of them require IQ tests, interviews, observations, etc. In effect, these preschools are selecting the “best candidates” for success at their preschool. This includes that the parents are involved, supportive, and (probably) emotionally stable. Parents who attempt to enroll their kids into such preschools are very likely to be highly educated, affluent, and achievement-oriented. The kiddos who are allowed into these schools are most likely very bright, motivated, socially adept, and well-behaved from the start.

Thus, these elite preschools have a very stacked deck with regards to getting positive educational outcomes from the students who are enrolled. Arguably (I’m playing Devil’s advocate a little by going here), teachers at these schools probably don’t need to be near as effective…or work as hard…to get positive educational outcomes in comparison to teachers in lower socioeconomic schools who are able to get positive educational outcomes from their children. Did you ever see the movie Stand and Deliver in which a mathematics teacher in a poor Hispanic high school was able to get his students to pass advanced placement calculus? Now that’s impressive!

So, I don’t doubt that many of these elite preschools are quite impressive with wonderful teachers using some of the most innovative, empirically-supported educational methods out there. Still, I think we need to keep our perspective. There are many factors involved in our kids’ “success” in life. A particular school or teacher  is not going to make-or-break or children’s future. (Okay, I realize there are some horror stories out there, but let’s stick to the realm of “good enough”). The law of diminishing returns enters at some point, and we need to keep focused on the factors that are most important to our children’s success in life. I’m going to be doing several more posts on this topic, so please stay tuned!

As it turns out, the analogy that the brain is much like a muscle really is fitting. With intense training and practice, the brain forms new and robust synaptic connections that allow us to meet new challenges. Our usual tendency is to avoid our weak areas. Unfortunately, this tendency undermines the adaptation process. For our brains to grow and change, we must deliberately focus our attention…to seek stimuli that provide the “exercise” that our brains need for neuronal growth to occur.

Doidge makes the science both accessible and interesting. You might find that his book inspires you to challenge yourself in new ways knowing that neuroplasticity is on your side. My one caveat about this book is that, in describing some of the neuroscience research, Doidge details a number of animal studies, particularly primate studies, that I found emotionally unsettling. I’m don’t have a rigid view on animal research. I realize that some of these studies on animals lead to findings that can alleviate human suffering and save lives. I get that. However, I still find myself feeling pretty sad for the animals that are sacrificed to advance our scientific knowledge. So, if you would find reading about some of these animal studies upsetting, then this might not be the best book for you.