How Parents Around the World Describe Their Children, in Charts
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Terms like "agreeable", "socially mature", and "well balanced" (versus "attention seeking", presumably a bad thing) can signify that parents place quite a bit of importance on how well their children conform to social norms and expectations. The article mentions bedtime rules, but this can also extend to long-entrenched traditions in "Old World" societies.
On the other hand, the fact that American parents don't use these terms, and instead use terms like "independent" and "rebellious", shows that American culture places a high value on thinking and living outside of the box. The lack of "calm" and "happy" might make life more stressful for parents and children alike, but at the same time, the term "adaptable" implies that Americans expect the world around them to change quickly, and when it does, you gotta change, too. America is newer and changes faster. It's not surprising that Americans value qualities that make people innovative, disruptive, and not bound by any rule that they didn't make by themselves.
As a person who has lived half his life in a society where being "well rounded", conformity, and obedience to authority are considered a child's primary virtues, I must confess that I am rather partial to the "American" style, tradition be damned.
Edit: There also seems to be a relevant difference between Northern/Western Europe and Southern Europe, just as there is a large cultural difference between Northeastern/Western U.S. and the Southeast. So maybe the comparison should be between industrial regions and traditionally agricultural regions, or between relatively secular regions and deeply religions regions, rather than between America and Europe as a whole. Seems obvious in some ways.
My observation is that the value placed on conformity is the US is astounding. Just take a look at the undergrad girls on any university campus. They all look so alike; it is almost as if they were wearing uniform, it's staggering. Also: the importance of "rules".
Just take a look at the undergrads in a Chinese/Japanese/Korean university. It's as if they belonged to some sort of military organization.
There is this idea that conformity is valued highly in East Asian cultures, and I have never been there and consequenly can't tell if this is true. But in America there is this talk of freedom, individualism and stuff, and it just simply isn't so.
Conformity is highly valued in all human cultures. It's what makes a culture a culture, what stabilizes and maintains it. The difference is more that Americans like to delude themselves with self-aggrandizing rhetoric, but don't have the experience and training to actually put it into practice.
Genuine "outside the norm" behaviour is frowned upon and "thinking outside the box" and "rebelliousness" often means denying scientific position on well studied problems.
Rebellious, adaptable and individual in a commercial sense might mean somebody resisting the mainstream and innovating. On the other hand, from a systemic point of view, it can denote an egotistical and spineless person that doesn't fit in (which is bad).
Whether the strong focus on individuality, adaptability, rebellion and cognitive advancement is positive or negative will ultimately hinge on your overall image of the wider society creating these values.
Your cell phone was basically invented in Finland. So was Linux. The English cracked Enigma.
I had a quick google for some data and the best measure I could find was this[1], which places the US on a similar level to the European/Scandinavian countries with strong economies.
[1] http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii/main/fullreport/fil...
It's a vast difference between "technology innovator" and "a successful international corporation built on technology innovations", and Europe has a ton of the former. For every Tesla there's a Rimac Automobili, for every SpaceX there's a Hipersfera -- and that's just from a small country on the edge of EU. I'm sure others could come up with better results from elsewhere.
There are few things that help you cope with those really challenging parenting days like knowing your kids are going to be in bed at 8pm, with 30 minutes of relaxing parent/child time before that. Knowing you get a break is immensely empowering.
I cringe for the kids when I see them walking around the grocery store with their parents at 11pm. It doesn't surprise me that so many kids are unable to concentrate[2] when they are sleep deprived, overly stimulated, and jacked up on sugar (Lucky Charms is 40% sugar. Baby formula has more sugar than Coke.).
All that said, my kids are smart. ;) But what really excites me about my kids is watching them find and explore their interests. The word I would use to describe them is "unique".
1. Sorry, no academic research to back it up. Lots of anecdotal experience from my own kids and those of others who have come to my wife and I for advice. Also, just look at how many times a kid can watch the same movie over and over again. :)
2. My wife works as a pediatric nurse. I have no doubt there are many kids (and adults for that matter) who are wired very differently and need help to fit into society's notion of how a kid should behave. I also think that we are doing massive damage to kids by all the sugar we feed them, especially in liquid form, whether it's milkshake formula or Mountain Dew, and that damage is showing up as a slew of problems, from obesity and Type II diabetes to cognitive issues. However, those are going to be exceedingly difficult to prove, and powerful interests (from the USDA to food producers) will do everything they can to distract people from proving it.
Based on the nutrition info I found with a couple minutes googling, this seems incorrect.
http://productnutrition.thecoca-colacompany.com/products/coc...
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/baby-foods/440/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/baby-foods/452/2
The second one there comes close, but they all seem to be in the same basic range as human breast milk:
The truth is that formula is useful as a substitute for breast milk, but it's not a complete substitute. We should probably be leaning towards breast milk unless there is a reason not to.
We should probably rid ourselves of notions like:
* Formula is obviously better than breast milk because... science!
* Feeding your baby formula is a sign of wealth (much like wet-nurses in the past) because only poor people that can't afford formula breast-feed (i.e. breast milk is 'free' therefore obviously isn't as good).
* Breast-feeding is harmful to children because seeing a breast will scar them for life.
One of my kids was raised on formula, the others had it to augment breast milk. I don't think there is anything wrong with using formula, but I do think the majority of the inexpensive formula out there isn't much different that giving your baby liquified lucky charms.
Of course it does--milk has a lot of sugar in it. Breastmilk is about 7.1 g/100ml (all lactose), and good infant formula is about the same. Coke is 10.2 g/100 ml (fructose and sucrose). Some infant formulas do have added sucrose.
My kids are way past breast feeding/formula stage, but if they weren't, I would certainly be watching very closely what ingredients were in the formula if my wife chose not to or couldn't breast feed. I'm sure there are good formulas if you dig a little.
1. http://wordsofwilliams.com/what-ingredients-are-in-infant-fo... I couldn't find an ingredients list on Similac's website.
By far the worst problem with HFCS is that it is pumped into foods that shouldn't have any added sugar at all, like breads, and marinades, and water, and all that junk sold in boxes at supermarkets. Being different from lactose isn't anywhere near as significant.
And the economic/agricultural issues around HFCS are problematic-- not a nutrition issue.
As far as your comment about HFCS not being different, I respectfully disagree. I don't think HFCS is markedly different than, say, table sugar: both are about 50% glucose and 50% fructose. But fructose is processed differently, and the increased burden that places on the liver causes a whole host of problems, not just obesity. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is now a common disease, and that is the effect of all the fructose being dumped on us.
So, yes, HFCS is a nutritional issue, as well as a political and agricultural issue, but certainly not because it's "unnatural" but because the thing that gives it it's sweetness (without a shell of fiber around it) is toxic to our bodies when consumed in large quantities over a long period of time.
One question to ponder: if there was not sone fundamental difference in nutrition, why would babies gorge themselves to obesity on it? Milk production follows baby's demand, as any mother can tell you during a child's growth spurt. If the baby wanted to eat more, the mother would produce it. But they don't. Instead, something fundamental is different.
I believe it is the type of sugar and I believe the evidence backs that up. But I also think a lot more research needs to be conducted, because the evidence isn't iron-clad.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the studies in nutrition for the last 30-40 years have done little more than massage results to fit the prevailing politics (aka what the government will fund). Nutritional "science"[1] is badly broken, and it takes looking deeper into the biochemistry to start getting clues about what is bad for us and what isn't.
1. My latest favorite is the "top-baldness raises your risk of heart disease". These kinds of "results" are claimed all of the time, with little apparent thought to "is it causal or does something else cause top-baldness and heart disease?
I've noticed the difference in The Netherlands. My wife was just this afternoon planning the bedtime rooster for our first child (due in September!). I put it down to her Dutch tick for planning/organization.
What is true is that the maternity/paternity system here is awesome: it's like society has accepted that yes, people do have kids. And, if we all want to keep working (and share the job of raising the nippers), then we need to make some pragmatic decisions. Like be flexible with work time, and have subsidised childcare.
What George Bernard Shaw said was true. England and America are two countries separated by a common language.
I recommend starting with "Notes from a small island".
For example the first quote says "A fascinating new study reveals that Americans are more likely to call their children 'intelligent'", but in fact a higher percentage of parents in Australia say their children are more intelligent.
Parents in Spain think their kids are really really easy.
When you have more than one child, I think you're more realistic about their personalities and capabilities, because you can compare them. When you have just one, everything they do is extraordinary. When you have more, you see them more as a bunch of morons who get things right occasionally through random chance.
Not to mention, since we in the U.S. don't typically have large broods, most people have very little experience with children at all and are shocked at what they are capable of, because it doesn't really fit with the preconceived notion of what a "child" is.
It touches on a lot of the ideas in this article, in much greater depth, and looking across a wider range of cultures and continents.
In short, if you find this article interesting, I would highly recommend the book.
Can anyone else find the actual text that says, "We surveyed this many families and asked them these specific questions"?
"Themes and Variations: Parental Ethnotheories in Western Cultures ... to appear in: Rubin, K. (Ed.), Parental beliefs, parenting, and child development in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Psychology Press."
http://brown.edu/Departments/Human_Development_Center/Roundt...
So the difference between 5% and 10% is 5 or 6 or 7 of the participants, not "far more likely" and such.
A reasonable conclusion from the study is that people don't particularly use common descriptions for their children.
http://brown.edu/Departments/Human_Development_Center/Roundt...
I don't see anything about controlling for variables, experiment design, confidence intervals etc. This is an ethnographic study, not a random survey. Don't treat it like one.
A lot of American parents I meet go on and on about how smart and fantastic their children are. They even have bumper stickers announcing that their offspring are honor students at some school. I never hear about how they are well adjusted and happy.
"Any other armchair ethnographers care to weigh in?"
Indeed.
Especially since there is not really any context to it. Also kind of strange how the only ones who are rebellious are US?
We can't tell if the only ones who are rebellious are US, from the article. What we can tell is that US parents consider their children rebellious.