[meme] things i do not blog about, 1/?
[initial post]

it is indeed the case that i rarely blog about Issues, political or social or otherwise, and while there are some issues on which i have definite opinions, i'm far from being the sort of person who has an opinion on everything. this was therefore an interesting exercise. is it worse to be ignorant of the facts yet have an opinion, or know the facts yet be apathetic? i think i tend more to the former.

from wao: what I think about what parents of child prodigies should do

Parenting is not something I can ever see myself doing, and I certainly wasn't a child prodigy, so I have no personal stake in this issue either way. Neither am I sure that I have any right to judge what others 'should' do, particularly due to my lack of knowledge about child psychology and development and so on. That having been said -- I think the same general principles apply to being a parent of a child prodigy and just being a parent. There has to be a balance between doing what one thinks is best for the child regardless of the child's wishes (the term is 'paternalism', after all) and basically not making the child's life hell.

While there definitely is some sort of obligation for the parents to ensure that their child's gifts are nurtured such that the child comes as close as possible to fulfilling his/her full potential (oh man, I hate this sort of language), there is perhaps an even stronger obligation for the parents to ensure that their child has a happy childhood. In general I think the child's wishes must take precedence, within reason. A little pushing might help in some cases, perhaps, but ultimately I think prodigies need to be nurtured, not led -- the parents' role being a support one, not a guiding one. So give the kid free rein, encourage them to push themselves as far as they feel comfortable. Let them realise their own dreams, and don't make them realise the dreams of their doting parents.

But the 'within reason' clause should still stand. If the child is a genius at mathematics and wants to skip several levels in school, let them -- unless there are strong reasons for suspecting that this will be worse in the long run, perhaps on the social front. If the child wants to spend all their time composing symphonies and not going to school, then one has to consider the importance of current education for the child's future. If the parents have to take an active role, let it be one of holding back rather than pushing forward.

I think especial care should be taken with prodigies of the artistic sort, as opposed to prodigies in science or language or any of the more academic disciplines. Artistic talent often comes with great psychological and emotional burdens attached, I think, and to push an artistically talented child too much could make them burn out and ruin them for life, while holding them back too tightly might make them lose their spark.

Parents should also remember that no matter how talented or intelligent their children, kids are kids, not mini adults. Their emotional and psychological development shouldn't be neglected.

what I think of the calls to boycott the Olympics.

I confess to not knowing as much about politics as I should, firstly as a citizen ('global citizen'? Augh, all these cliches) and secondly as a student of politics. I also have mixed feelings about China. I did go through a brief phase, in my early teens, of wanting China to succeed, and feeling almost a sense of pride by association. I am far, far away from feeling anything like that right now. But at the same time I cannot bring myself to feel the sort of righteous hostility towards China that others may feel. Then again, perhaps this is because I cannot bring myself to feel hostility in general.

At any rate, I think the calls to boycott are well-founded. I think the Chinese government has done and is doing reprehensible things. But I also think that an actual boycott should not (and probably will not) happen.

Perhaps I am biased by my experiences. I visited Beijing in 2001, just before the winning bid was due to be announced. On one hand, there was the destruction of historical and cultural heritage -- I recall most clearly the spraypainted '拆' signs on hutongs -- yet on the other there was so much hope and optimism amongst the Chinese I spoke to there, the feeling that the Olympics was Beijing's chance; for glory and economic gain, yes, but also for progress and even reform. And I am optimistic -- too optimistic, arguably -- about China. I want to believe that China will be a decent player in world politics, that she will eventually pursue reform in areas other than that of economics, even if she does so for purely pragmatic reasons.

Besides, I tend to doubt the effectiveness of boycotts or sanctions or similar moves, in general. I don't think negative reinforcement works as well as positive reinforcement, and yes, I know the argument that if you give an inch to some countries they will take a mile (or 得寸进尺, as it were) but still I think that negative reinforcement is likely to backfire. Particularly with countries where the idea of 'face' is paramount, and where humiliation is likely to breed resentment rather than compliance. You're handing over ammunition to existing detractors, too. I believe that a failed Olympics -- an Olympics ruined by the 'Western world', as it would no doubt be framed -- would be worse for the state of reform in China in the long run, than if the rest of the world allowed Beijing to try and pull off a successful Olympics, complicit in the government's crimes.

And then again... then again I think the calls for boycott are a good thing, even if an actual boycott would not be. The calls for boycott and the accompanying bad press put pressure on the government, and even if a boycott never materialises (and I doubt one will) the message has been sent. A message without much bite, you could argue, but once again, the cultural sensitivity to 'preserving one's face' means that the message is likely to have some impact nonetheless. An actual boycott would harm the people, and not necessarily improve the lot of those already suffering. The calls for boycott may perhaps achieve, even if to a far far lesser degree, some of the intended aims of an actual boycott without all of the pain accompanying it.