Japanese Education: Amae, Stress, and Perseverence
tofugu.com
tofugu.com
"Amaeruna!" is heard often and for good reason. It means stop acting like a child and grow the F up. There is also "Amaesugi" (too much) and "Amaenbou" (someone who does too much) which are not positive terms. Then there is "Mazakon" which is short for mother complex. It's an insult, not a compliment, and it's directed towards male adults.
So you see, Japanese are both aware and critical of their amae tendencies.
> this amae… it's what keeps Japanese society together. It's the root cause of the successes you see in the Japanese education system.
Nah. I would stop at discipline, order, and obedience. Amae is still very personal, and is not any glue that builds businesses or communities, let alone the culture. Where it is seen exported the most is in Anime culture, not Sony or Toyota or Uniqlo or Rakuten.
Also, the part about "rat babies with a strong attachment to their mothers" can also be interpreted as "rat mothers with a strong attachment to their babies". Amae is not the opposite of neglect, nor a cure for it. The word for a parent's apparent over-attachment is "Oyabaka". You don't want to be too much of that either.
I was raised by a single mother. I had a lot of alone time, which I enjoyed very much. But I was never neglected. When I was little, I was an amaenbou. But I did well in school because I had good studying habits, and my mother paid attention to how I did and how I did it. I had a stress free childhood, did well in school, and did not need amae to counteract my stress. None of my friends were stressed out either. Being a kid in Japan is fun. I'd say junior high that's the worst with Ijime at it's peak.
Side note... The author repeatedly mentioning "grit" and "self-control" seems to be citing (maybe subconsciously) Angela Duckworth's research[1]. As an fyi, there has been criticism of her study:
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/05/25/479172868/angela-d...
If Duckworth's research is flawed (e.g. IQ is still the #1 statistical correlation we have of a measured trait and economic outcomes), it means the blog author's paragraph is wrong:
>Most people think that IQ, the ability to memorize, etc., are the key metrics for determining the future of a child. These are what economists call "cognitive skills" and it turns out they are not very good predictors of future success. What are good predictors are what's known as "non-cognitive skills." These are things like persistence, self-control, curiosity, conscientiousness, grit, and self-confidence (there are a lot more, too).
[1] book: https://www.amazon.com/Grit-Passion-Perseverance-Angela-Duck...
other writings: https://www.macfound.org/fellows/889/
Early childhood engagement is incredibly important. We attribute many things to genetics that are outgrowths of a child's home environment. Parents stuck in cycles of inattentive or abusive family situations, over-reliance on shitty daycare vs. early childhood education, etc make a huge impact.
Yes I agree that's very true but it's not relevant to the author's specific paragraph I was highlighting. Your particular statement can be true while simultaneously, Koichi's paragraph is false.
This doesn't have to be some larger debate about nature-vs-nurture. Instead, I'm pointing out an example of reading a paragraph with a critical eye.
> Most people think that IQ, the ability to memorize, etc., are the key metrics for determining the future of a child.
In Japan this is definitely true. It's what most people think, as dictated by what is common sense.
All the while, the mother with the tensai (genius) child will have instilled good studying habits, focus, prep, etc, and still believe her child is just smart for having good grades.
So Koichi's paragraph is not false. Or rather, there is truth there. If you wish to highlight the falseness then that is possible too, but taking an entire paragraph and trying to equate it as true or false is not that simple.
To be clear, I included that 1st sentence there for context so the subsequent sentences make sense. Same contextual reason for sentence #4. Yes, Japanese people may think that and yes, non-cognitive skill includes persistence, etc.
>, but taking an entire paragraph
When I'm saying "paragraph" may be false, I'm talking about sentences #2 and #3 and not #1 and #4.
Frankly it depends on your definition of success. In an extreme example, we had a young man with Down's syndrome who cleaned our office and did some maintenance a few years ago. He demonstrated all of those non-cognitive characteristics, lived independently and seemed to be happy. I would argue that despite a fundamental deficit in cognitive ability and a corresponding low IQ, he was a successful adult.
In the context of a conversation about Japan, where success is getting into a school and becoming a salaryman, those non-cognitive skills (which were broader than just the much-hyped "grit") are meaningful once you hit some average threshold of brainpower.
I don't know if "independence" and "toughness" capture what the author wants to talk about. There are cultures built around machismo in which male children are coddled and doted on by their mothers, where it is normal to be a "momma's boy" at home and a swaggering macho in the street. It's also possible to believe in the ideals of equality and interdependence in society at large while having zero emotional intimacy in the home.
That said, it's interesting that Japan has language for talking about this aspect of relationships. To me, it suggests a higher degree of uniformity in attachment styles compared to the United States, where talking about these kinds of relationships feels like a new social development associated with a progressive mentality. I think that historically in the United States, actual behavior at home has been all over the map. Different kids in the same classroom, with the same skin color, accent, and social class, are raised with dramatically different family relationships, often without realizing it until they are much older.
It's possible but may be harder. Home is like your base camp; you can have a crappy time in the outside world but home is the ultimate fallback and sanctuary. At least that's the ideal scenario. There's no doubt that growing up in a home that is broken or lacking warmth will affect you, and many studies have shown that. Take one: apparently if your parents are divorced, then the chance of your own divorcing will be higher [1], not to mention the other psychological impacts. Now imagine that divorce is normal - actually it is now - what impact does this have on society overall? It will be harder to measure, but it is real, just like those Japanese parents who raise their kids with love ultimately cultivates them into caring (amae context) people.
[1] https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/11/09/is-my-marr...
No, please read some research, please, for the love of god please stop, no. This conjecture is thoroughly questionable, there is copious research to show these traits developing essentially from birth. The same behavioural differences exist in effectively the same way cross-culturally (including in Japan).
There's more to it, schools in japan place a lot of responsibility on the kids. They are responsible for maintenance of the school (the non-dangerous kind), and later somewhat responsible for governing aspects of the school, among other things.
I can't remember a time in a Canadian public school where I was asked to do something useful for somebody. I think more of that would have helped a lot in terms of motivation.
I mean we had mandatory volunteer hours? But in general, yes, school is just a day-care and nothing more.
Is it volunteering if it's mandatory?
It is in fact called community involvement! It was my mistake.
* Japanese students students score higher because of the high-stakes college entrance exam system. However, this creates more stress. Japanese students are able to deal with this stress because of closeness with their mothers.
The article mentions studies on young children, but this does not seem particularly relevant because children would not yet be experiencing the stress created by the entrance exam system at this point, unless the argument is that the way children are raised in early childhood leaves them better able to deal with stress for the rest of their life, but I'm not sure there is evidence that Japanese people are better able to deal with stress than Americans in general.
Even if we assume that there is a difference parental involvement that makes them better able to handle stress than children in the US, it seems like a surprising leap to attribute this to this notional Japanese principle of "amae" without even mentioning the fact that the percentage of working mothers in the US is almost double what it is in Japan.
It's interesting that right now, we're trying to make learning easier. Gamification, bite-sized lengths, multi-sensory ... they all have merits but no one in edtech is talking about instilling a habit of grit. Not all knowledge is presented in a silver dish !
And not to be Luddite but technology has made us more detached [1], so emulating the Japanese amae will also not be easy.
Although I'm in the process of reading the article, the title was quite striking to me - the Buddha said almost exactly the opposite - that it is attachment which is the cause of stress, clinging to changing phenomena, hoping they were permanent, or even without realising at the emotional level that they will fade.
It's also not good for the other person either. For instance a scenario where your girlfriend may want to go to culinary school which is best for her, but if placed all your happiness in her, then you may be tempted to sabotage her attempts to follow her dreams (to varying degrees), so that she may stay with you.
These are at least the thoughts of an interesting fellow who was a jesuit who later embraced buddhism and was found to be "incompatible with the catholic faith", so you know it must be pretty good stuff: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/54195.Anthony_de_Mel...
>"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."
Dukkha is the word used by the Buddha to describe stressfulness, unsatisfactoriness, suffering, anguish etc., i.e that pain which is emotional; his position is that these arise from our desire to be stable, and from that desire acting upon it, to try and slow the tides of change. At least, that is my understanding.
But non-attachment to people need not mean that one stops feeling compassion for them, nor does it mean that one has to break up with one's friends. It's more about being mindful of the kind of relationships you have, and how they affect you. For example, one of the Buddha's prescribed techniques is to meditate on the theme of death, that one's body will eventually die, to visualise each process of birth, aging, sickness, death, one's decomposing body, the bones left over, those bones themselves yellowing and decomposing.
But here we have even the most important of all - detachment from one's own body. I don't mean this in a kind of "outer body experience" way. It's not that one stops caring, it's that one understands on an emotional level that things pass; it's not enough to understand this on an intellectual level. This kind of base understanding within us, acheived through meditation, is referred to as nibbana/awakening/enlightenment.
>"Just as if a great mass of fire of ten... twenty... thirty or forty cartloads of timber were burning, and into it a man would time & again throw dried grass, dried cow dung, & dried timber, so that the great mass of fire — thus nourished, thus sustained — would burn for a long, long time. In the same way, in one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena, craving develops. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering & stress.
Thanks for saying this, those aren't synonymous and at one point I did read/study (cursory, survey level) about both Buddhism and Stoicism and came to understand the distinction but failed to use the correct terms in my comment.
Thanks also for the thoughtful reply. I have some reading to do now.
Buddhism has a lot in common with Epicureanism. This is the idea that "pleasure" is the greatest good. Epicurus's idea is that pleasure comes from a modest, curious, ascetic lifestyle. That long-term goals are much better than short-term ones.
I've seen a number of Japanophiles quite taken with this idea of amae, popularized by psychoanalyst Takeo Doi in 1971. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anatomy_of_Dependence
To me it sounds like a bunch of Freudian psychobabble or pseudoscience.
The author doesn't even really attempt to empiricially link Japanese amae and non-cognitive skills (persistence, self-control, curiosity, conscientiousness, grit, and self-confidence) in the specific case of Japan—where children should do better on the the Marshmallow Test, if this is accurate.
Tofugu has some great essays on learning Japanese, but this is not one.
I'm wary because I think culture as a whole exists only to stabilize social stratification. Under normal circumstances layers will naturally mix, but if the mobility channels are clearly specified, you have order. In the US this is the mythos if hard work, in many Asian cultures there are establish systems based around tests. Indian and European systems had no mobility, being caste and nobility based.
Hard layers eventually lead to revolt, but soft layers didn't cordone wealth. Soft layers with prescribed channels are more stable.
So the existing channels are actually purposely inefficient and mostly stupid.
Entrepreneuship for example used to be forced. It was what you must do when given too much freedom. It was freedom in the sense of far too much, being ostracized in the desert.
Technology though provides the tools to survive in excess freedom. The desert can become a plain, once you have your endless water supply and teleporter that is.
The side effect is that these tools eat culture. It doesn't destroy the bike, but invents the car. Culture becomes a weekend thing.
Cultural praising often reminds me of hipster-ish praising of things like traditional razors and single gear fixies. People going backwards while claiming to be going forwards.
Important nitpick: Dr. Mary Ainsworth (the professor who wrote about attachment theory) is female. The article incorrectly assumes the professor was a "he."
My personal view on the Toyota software problem is that Toyota has the same problem as every American hardware company I've interacted with that went into software. Software was a necessary evil and outside their wheelhouse. Many of them succeed at software despite themselves until something comes up that forces them to reexamine what they're doing.
This could have helped: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6331897.stm
and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
I can't find it now, but I believed at some point the US held a high percentage of world sci/eng labour. And it's a lot easier to expand hi-tech economy than create it from scratch.