How to Read, Write, and Speak
During my sophomore year I took an Honors social science class titled "How to Read, Write, and Speak". The professor had us study these three subjects in order; first we analyzed the writing style of various articles and speeches, then we wrote our own articles, and finally we gave prepared speeches to the class.
My skills in all three of these areas improved dramatically as a result of this class. I truly enjoyed exercising the more social parts of my brain that took a back seat in my engineering classes. I've always had a wide range of interests, so this is an example where Interdisciplinary Honors allowed me to branch out an learn different subjects. Additionally, as an engineer, I feel it gives me a district advantage to have more writing and speaking experience, as many engineers lack these skills.
Below I have included one of the papers that I wrote for this class. It was an opinion piece based on a recent Wall Street Journal article about a Chinese mother and her controversial parenting style.
My skills in all three of these areas improved dramatically as a result of this class. I truly enjoyed exercising the more social parts of my brain that took a back seat in my engineering classes. I've always had a wide range of interests, so this is an example where Interdisciplinary Honors allowed me to branch out an learn different subjects. Additionally, as an engineer, I feel it gives me a district advantage to have more writing and speaking experience, as many engineers lack these skills.
Below I have included one of the papers that I wrote for this class. It was an opinion piece based on a recent Wall Street Journal article about a Chinese mother and her controversial parenting style.
Parenting, Politics, and Societal Equilibrium
Much debate has recently been stirred up by Amy Chua’s article in the Wall Street Journal titled Why Chinese Mothers are Superior. It boldly characterizes a strict, harsh, and verbally abusive parenting model as “Chinese”, and describes “Western” parenting as lax and ineffective. Naturally, Western parents have reacted defensively to her harsh parenting model and sharp criticism of Western parenting, and it has evolved into a national debate.
What is it that is so provocative about the article? It’s extreme, and unreasonable. Chua opens the article with a list of things her daughters were never allowed to do, including such things as “attend a sleepover”, “have a playdate”, “get any grade less than an A”, and “not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama”. From a Western point of view, the first two are extreme restrictions, and the next two are unreasonable expectations. This opening immediately biases us against the article, and we are unlikely to accept anything else she says later on.
As a more Western thinking person, I was surprised and disturbed by her stark opening, and viewing my upbringing as favorable, I naturally placed my parents into the “Western” category. After all, my parents let me do most of the things on that list, so they must be “Western Parents” I concluded. But then I realized there were several similarities between Amy Chua’s parenting style and that of my parents. My parents forced me to play the piano, for example, something Chua also forced her children to do.
When I discovered these similarities, I began to question whether my parents were truly “Western Parents” or not. I did not want to believe they could share the same title of parenting as the self proclaimed “Tiger Mother” Amy Chua. My parents have never verbally abused me or required me to get good grades, but since they share some similarities, what category do they fit into?
That is when I realized a major flaw in the foundation of the article and my mistake in interpreting it. The article defines two parenting methods, which Chua dubs “Chinese” and Western”, and describes them in a sharp contrast to each other. This led me to believe that in order to still call myself “Western” I would have to disagree with everything that she said, which I later realized was irrational. Can a balance be struck?
A few years ago some of my cousins were impressed by my piano playing ability, and they explained that they played piano for about a week when they were younger, but quit because they didn’t like it. I was surprised, because my parents would not have allowed me to quit so soon, and my cousins actually expressed regret that their parents had not pressured them to continue for longer.
On the other side of the spectrum, I was at my aunt’s house as a young child, and she told me I had to take a nap. I explained to her that I never took naps, and after some arguing, she locked me in a room for two hours expecting me to fall asleep, while I was actually swinging my legs off the side of the bed, bored out of my skull with nothing to do.
Simply because many of us find Amy Chua to be extreme and unreasonable, does this mean that she has nothing to teach us? My answer is no. I would argue that her method is extreme and abusive, but still, if we have no restrictions of any kind on our children and do not encourage them to be disciplined and hardworking, they are unlikely to be successful.
The same is true of politics. There are many extremists of both sides of the aisle, who cause people to become alienated from them and reluctant to consider any of their views. This causes people to separate into one camp or the other, polarizing opinions and broadening the divide.
Take one of the typically polarizing issues in political spheres: abortion. Does this issue have anything to do with the things Americans say they believe are the most important such as the economy, health care, national security, or the deficit? No. However, there are many people on either side of the debate who are very passionate about this issue. Imagine a person who does not care much about politics in general, and knows very little about most issues, but has extremely strong views one way or the other on abortion. This person is almost guaranteed to join the ranks of the party that supports them on this one issue, and will then most likely adopt that party’s views on all of the other issues simply on the basis that “people like them” believe it. All of this happens without the person listening or even considering the views of the other side on various issues, due to their distaste for people who disagree with them on their “hot button” issue.
This scenario is very common, and is not remedied at all by the parties or their members. As we all know, pro-choice activists are as unwelcome in Republican circles as pro-life activists are among Democrats. This trend continues across the board, as conservatives push away environmentalists while liberals do the same to entrepreneurs. The especially radical party members are often the most vocal, and give their party an extreme reputation that pushes even more people away, until there are scores of independents with disgust for both major parties. This is exactly why American politics has become so polarized.
In both politics and in the recent parenting debate, there are two forces at work causing polarization. There is a flow of information helping to educate people on various issues, and in that flow there are two parties; the informer and the receiver; and they each frequently possess traits that cause polarization. In the informer this trait is an excess of extreme language, while in the receiver this trait is a lack of objective consideration of information. Polarization can only occur if both of these forces are at work; an objective receiver will sift though extreme language, and a moderate speaking informer is unlikely to incite polarizing debate.
I am not arguing that if we eliminated these forces that everyone would swing to the middle and find common ground, but rather, I think the political climate and system would benefit from more objective consideration of issues and information, and less extreme language. People will always have differing solutions to problems, but there is nothing to be lost and everything to be gained in expressing our opinions in a rational and logical manner, and objectively considering the views of others to help us understand their position better.
In nature, all living things are in a delicate balance with each other. If herbivores are not kept in check by predators, they will overgraze the plant population and destroy their own habitat, resulting in mass starvation. At the same time, if there are too many predators, they will kill off their prey and starve in turn.
In “Life of Lycurgus”, Plutarch argued in favor of the Roman Senate as “a central weight, like ballast in a ship, which always keeps things in just equilibrium.”
I believe that in politics, parenting, and all issues in human society, we must search for the “just equilibrium” on any issue, and avoid polarization. Granted, there is no equilibrium that everyone will agree on, but it will be closer to “just” if people are more objective and logical in their gathering of information and presentation of arguments.
What is it that is so provocative about the article? It’s extreme, and unreasonable. Chua opens the article with a list of things her daughters were never allowed to do, including such things as “attend a sleepover”, “have a playdate”, “get any grade less than an A”, and “not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama”. From a Western point of view, the first two are extreme restrictions, and the next two are unreasonable expectations. This opening immediately biases us against the article, and we are unlikely to accept anything else she says later on.
As a more Western thinking person, I was surprised and disturbed by her stark opening, and viewing my upbringing as favorable, I naturally placed my parents into the “Western” category. After all, my parents let me do most of the things on that list, so they must be “Western Parents” I concluded. But then I realized there were several similarities between Amy Chua’s parenting style and that of my parents. My parents forced me to play the piano, for example, something Chua also forced her children to do.
When I discovered these similarities, I began to question whether my parents were truly “Western Parents” or not. I did not want to believe they could share the same title of parenting as the self proclaimed “Tiger Mother” Amy Chua. My parents have never verbally abused me or required me to get good grades, but since they share some similarities, what category do they fit into?
That is when I realized a major flaw in the foundation of the article and my mistake in interpreting it. The article defines two parenting methods, which Chua dubs “Chinese” and Western”, and describes them in a sharp contrast to each other. This led me to believe that in order to still call myself “Western” I would have to disagree with everything that she said, which I later realized was irrational. Can a balance be struck?
A few years ago some of my cousins were impressed by my piano playing ability, and they explained that they played piano for about a week when they were younger, but quit because they didn’t like it. I was surprised, because my parents would not have allowed me to quit so soon, and my cousins actually expressed regret that their parents had not pressured them to continue for longer.
On the other side of the spectrum, I was at my aunt’s house as a young child, and she told me I had to take a nap. I explained to her that I never took naps, and after some arguing, she locked me in a room for two hours expecting me to fall asleep, while I was actually swinging my legs off the side of the bed, bored out of my skull with nothing to do.
Simply because many of us find Amy Chua to be extreme and unreasonable, does this mean that she has nothing to teach us? My answer is no. I would argue that her method is extreme and abusive, but still, if we have no restrictions of any kind on our children and do not encourage them to be disciplined and hardworking, they are unlikely to be successful.
The same is true of politics. There are many extremists of both sides of the aisle, who cause people to become alienated from them and reluctant to consider any of their views. This causes people to separate into one camp or the other, polarizing opinions and broadening the divide.
Take one of the typically polarizing issues in political spheres: abortion. Does this issue have anything to do with the things Americans say they believe are the most important such as the economy, health care, national security, or the deficit? No. However, there are many people on either side of the debate who are very passionate about this issue. Imagine a person who does not care much about politics in general, and knows very little about most issues, but has extremely strong views one way or the other on abortion. This person is almost guaranteed to join the ranks of the party that supports them on this one issue, and will then most likely adopt that party’s views on all of the other issues simply on the basis that “people like them” believe it. All of this happens without the person listening or even considering the views of the other side on various issues, due to their distaste for people who disagree with them on their “hot button” issue.
This scenario is very common, and is not remedied at all by the parties or their members. As we all know, pro-choice activists are as unwelcome in Republican circles as pro-life activists are among Democrats. This trend continues across the board, as conservatives push away environmentalists while liberals do the same to entrepreneurs. The especially radical party members are often the most vocal, and give their party an extreme reputation that pushes even more people away, until there are scores of independents with disgust for both major parties. This is exactly why American politics has become so polarized.
In both politics and in the recent parenting debate, there are two forces at work causing polarization. There is a flow of information helping to educate people on various issues, and in that flow there are two parties; the informer and the receiver; and they each frequently possess traits that cause polarization. In the informer this trait is an excess of extreme language, while in the receiver this trait is a lack of objective consideration of information. Polarization can only occur if both of these forces are at work; an objective receiver will sift though extreme language, and a moderate speaking informer is unlikely to incite polarizing debate.
I am not arguing that if we eliminated these forces that everyone would swing to the middle and find common ground, but rather, I think the political climate and system would benefit from more objective consideration of issues and information, and less extreme language. People will always have differing solutions to problems, but there is nothing to be lost and everything to be gained in expressing our opinions in a rational and logical manner, and objectively considering the views of others to help us understand their position better.
In nature, all living things are in a delicate balance with each other. If herbivores are not kept in check by predators, they will overgraze the plant population and destroy their own habitat, resulting in mass starvation. At the same time, if there are too many predators, they will kill off their prey and starve in turn.
In “Life of Lycurgus”, Plutarch argued in favor of the Roman Senate as “a central weight, like ballast in a ship, which always keeps things in just equilibrium.”
I believe that in politics, parenting, and all issues in human society, we must search for the “just equilibrium” on any issue, and avoid polarization. Granted, there is no equilibrium that everyone will agree on, but it will be closer to “just” if people are more objective and logical in their gathering of information and presentation of arguments.