FrankGol,
I began my post with,"Many Asians assume that because western family
structure is the "nuclear family" that westerners must have a limited
sense of family and family values relative to the Asian experience of
the extended family.", because that is my personal experience found
from conversations with Indians, Tamil, Chinese, Laotian, Vietnamese,
Thai and Filipinos. All having lived in the "western world" for many years.
You may consider it pop sociology, they see it as a fundamental social
difference in behaviour. I've even had your Greeks and Italians, who are
of the "western world" suggest that the "familiar caring" found in
"their extended family plan" removes what they perceive is a disconnect
precipitated by the "nuclear family" Structure.

"Western children in the main are taught to think for themselves because
the opportunities are such that the advantage of wealth and independence
are more readily available." I made this statement due to the fact that
still today much of the Asian psyche is agrarian not industrial. That the
material wealth provided by "industrialization" brings with it a
corresponding change in that social psyche. One such change is the
"western psyche" of "go get your own", which manifest personal and social
independence. It was never a reference to scholastic success or a put
down of any race or society.

And Frank. I wasn't upset with you because you disagreed with my post.
You may still for all I care. What I'm concerned with is the habit I find
of some such as yourself, taking the liberty of recharacterizing a post to
suit their counter argument. Such as your,"The reality is far more complex.
Many western families - in places like Greece, Italy, the USA and Australia
for example - work on the extended family model that you say is an Asian
phenomenon." Or trying to make me responsible for your self-designed
implication, "Likewise the claim that 'Western children in the main are
taught to think for themselves' and by implication, Asian children are not,
is unjustifiable stereotyping."
Having said neither, my personal view is that it is an unnecessary belligerence.

Ok aqvarivs, I guess we are on different psychological and sociological wave lengths. I think terms like 'Asian values' and your new ones today, 'Asian psyche' and 'western psyche', are empty of real meaning; and in several posts have given what I think are sound reasons for my judgement that 'Asian values' is an invalid construct. But you obviously think these sorts of labels carry some content that you and others can talk about.

I put my opinion forward with the best tools at my disposal - sound argument and relevant evidence such as the sentence you quoted from me: "The reality is far more complex. Many western families - in places like Greece, Italy, the USA and Australia
for example - work on the extended family model that you say is an Asian
phenomenon."

You think I put forward my opinion using 'unnecessary belligerence'. My friends would not recognise that description of me, although they would say that I always insist on challenging sloppy thinking especially the use of vacuous terminology like 'Asian values'. That's the only way I know that can get people engaging properly with each other's minds.

aqvarivs, we are all adults on OLO (as far as I can tell); therfore we are responsible for our own feelings and reactions to others who challenge our opinions.

Best wishes

Frank

The trouble is Frank that stereotypical patterns exist. That these patterns are based on common mental pictures held by members of a group are not necessarily invalid because you can create an argument that says such generalities are not specific to every sociological map. The authors article speaks on the subject of this oversimplified, and uncritical judgment. People do this all the time to distinguish themselves from others. There are reasons. You may argue the veracity of such reasoning but, it exist. It's common thinking not uncommon thought. Perhaps you might relax your expectations and realize not everyone has your superior intellect or debating skills. I myself would never have thought to cut up a sentence and select one portion to disprove the context related by the complete sentence. I also don't think I'll adopt that approach or ever select it as one of my tools.
I thank you for pointing out to me that it is a common tactic employed by your class. I apologize for taking offense at what must seem to you common practice. I hesitate but, I dare say such behavioral thinking must be stereotypical of your group of like thinkers.

aqvarivs, I'll give it one more shot then I surrender!

You say: '...stereotypical patterns exist'. I agree. But I reserve the right to challenge them if I think they are invalid or dangerous. That's a simple distinction between 'is' statements and 'ought' statements.

You say: 'I myself would never have thought to cut up a sentence and select one portion to disprove the context related by the complete sentence.' If you think about it, that's what we do all the time for practical reasons; otherwise we'd just reprint the whole of the text that we want to comment on. You yourself quoted a selected sentence from my comments in order to make a comment on it. I don't object to your selecting only that bit of my whole text - I expect it.

I wonder if when you re-read your last paragraph you might find it a touch hypocritical. I try to refrain from personal abuse. It's the quality of ideas that interest me - that's why I bothered to make a response in the first place. I am not offended by your remarks: they help me clarify my own thoughts.

Thank you.