Bill Spight wrote:It may be a generational thing. For some time it seems like American schools and parents have been emphasizing self esteem over achievement. My teachers didn't care a fig about self esteem, and as a result taught a lot of students that they were not worth much and were not very capable. Maybe there has been an overcorrection.
Perhaps the regular derision in classrooms of yesteryear was to inspire temperance and diligence in the student - as well as encourage respect for the instructor's authority. Of course, it is now proven that occasional praise and respectful dialogue contribute positively to academic performance. As you say, though, there appears to have been an overcorrection. Much of this is related to the dilemma of classroom discipline.
AFAIK, the idea behind classroom discipline is to create an environment in which the student can learn new skills without distraction. Of course, however, this is often easier said than done for many instructors, short of either lavishly rewarding good behavior and eager learning or just taking a cane to the offenders' buttocks. East Asians appear to have the right idea in this regard; by giving the instructor a wide scope of authority, he/she is able to enforce classroom discipline in a manner conducive to formal learning, with mostly favorable results.
In the US, most parents nowadays side with the student (their children) and largely antagonize the instructor. Not very encouraging for the instructor. Although I believe the parent must always side with the child in a show of support during a difficult situation, the views of the instructor are just as valid and can yield information on the kind of classroom environment in which the child is learning. The idea is for the child to recognize that the instructor makes the learning environment possible and as such he/she should behave towards the instructor in a manner that is considered respectful. In return, the instructor should facilitate a learning environment in which students can learn the subject matter without undue distraction.
Which reminds me, there is also the phenomenon of students vying for individual attention in a classroom setting. (I used to be one of those.) I wonder if these students do not get enough attention from their parents at home. I've seen too many instances in which the child would like to say something to his/her parents, only to have the parents ignore him/her outright. Not conducive to respectful behavior, is it?
Up until a few years ago, in the US and in other countries the parents almost always sided with the instructor unconditionally. It is still like this in many countries, but in the US there has been a trend toward reducing the culpability of the child, but this seems to be practiced out of context IMO, since the teachers are often seen to be at fault and in many instances the instructors can be exonerated. I would dare to say that
it is the parents who are at fault if a child is performing poorly at school. Mom and Dad are any child's first instructors and, if the parents themselves do not demonstrate any real interest in academic education, why would the child be expected to perform well in school, if not for any reason other than to give them excuse to brag about themselves and stoke their plus-sized egos? Unless the child learned somewhere else that academic achievement is a good thing, it's likely that he/she will follow Mom & Dad's lead.
I have been wondering about this prioritization of perceived smarts, given that America is still an anti-intellectual country. Perhaps there is an idea that some people are smart and some people are not, and if you are not, why beat yourself up? "E for effort" is another Western saying. If effort is not going to be rewarded, why bother?
It's probably perceived this way in many American households. The parents themselves usually do not have any real interest in academic education, at least because it is considered to be an impractical waste of time. Also, someone who's spent a lot of time reading books is often perceived to be out of touch with the reality of the common citizen. Under this assumption one can say that it is more respectful - and therefore more conducive to social harmony - to allow a person to persist in their ignorance, than to alert them to the same and exhort them to come out of it.
There is a book by Richard Hofstadter, published in 1964 and titled
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. It is considered to be the definitive work on the subject, as it deals with the history of US anti-intellectualism. One thing I've discovered when reading about the book is that intellectual achievement has been perceived by most Americans as a form of privilege, not unlike great wealth or political influence. Hence there is the tendency to deride intellectuals as cold and distant, much the way that the rich would distance themselves from the poor. As well, whereas overreliance on the intellect will likely lead to moral decadence, strong personal character, plainspokenness, and a heart with a clear moral compass will help one to stay the course of righteous conduct; those with an overly curious mind would lack the temperance needed to deal with important issues in a practical manner. In fact, one can say that practicality is an American virtue, probably even more so than hard work.
Go is probably not very popularized in the West due to its reputation as an intellectual pursuit. That is, it something that the practical citizen cannot learn in just a few easy lessons. Even in East Asia the game has suffered a negative reputation more than once. During the Tang Dynasty in China Go was recast as an artistic pursuit worthy of an intellectual's time and attention, whereas up until then it was regarded mainly as a way for the upper classes to idle away their time. IMO this change was necessary if Go was to continue being played widely in China.
I found that out in this article, which, unfortunately for English speakers, is in Spanish.
http://lasindias.com/como-el-weiqi-conquisto-chinaGo's reputation as an intellectual pursuit might be what is holding back its popularization in Western countries. Although...
if a German auto mechanic or beer brewer were to pursue perfection in his craft the way East Asian pros pursue perfection in the game, would that make him an intellectual in the Western - or at least US - sense of the word?
) but I've observed the taisha jōseki, which has been obsolete since at least the early 20th century, and deduced some things. After the first 3 moves, White and Black try to separate each other, then reinforce and extend. The result is a group large enough to have influence over a very large part of the board. There are hundreds of variations, but, in the latter half of the 19th century, as Japanese Go players began to seek more developmental flexibility in the opening, the taisha was perceived to decide developmental possibilities too early in the game. Thus, the taisha slowly became obsolete and simpler jōseki, such as attach and extend, became more popular. By the time Go Seigen arrived on the Japanese pro scene, the taisha was largely obsolete. Of course not all large-scale jōseki became obsolete; the avalanche jōseki continues to be played even today, apparently because it creates a group with good outward influence, while avoiding the extensive ramification characteristic of the taisha. Also, 5-3 is not a common opening move in recent times, whereas 5-4 with a 3-4 shimari is common and avalanche jōsekis arise from it.
). Go can serve as an educational tool to help students do better in school and even in life as well. Which would make it compatible with a socially focused public school curriculum; Go can instill a humane view of the world, which is vital for any multicultural society.