(Continued from previous message)

variable, with some just resorting to the most extreme forms of crime
instead, standover and drug crime. Thats also true of the chinese too.

BG> Maybe possible loss of face comes into it, I don't know.

RS> Nope, its got SFA to do with it.

BG> I wouldn't be too sure about that.  It's actually very true.

RS> Its a western urban myth.

BG> What, not a conspiracy theory?  Oh well, that's something I guess. |-)

BG> Example, my local pharmacist has employed a Vietnamese Buddhist
BG> pharmacology student for a couple of years, and she not long ago
BG> graduated with honours (and married at the same time), and she
BG> told me more than once that it was extremely important for her to
BG> do well, so as not to shame her parents or family.  That's just
BG> one example, but it proves that your SFA comment doesn't apply.

RS> Bullshit it doesnt.

BG> Last I heard, SFA means NONE.

You need new batterys for your hearing aid then, its not the same.

BG> I have given a specific known example. Ergo, SFA no longer applies.

Only if SFA=NONE and it doesnt.

BG>  Or is that just another Grimsleyan brain fart?

Yes, it is indeed |-)

RS> You might try explaining why the Vietnamese gangs in
RS> Cabramatta dont appear to worry to much about that stuff.

BG> Or the tens of thousands of Vietnamese who despise these gangs,
BG> and who do worry about that stuff.  No black and white here Rod.

And not much evidence of 'loss of face' involved either Bill.
Thats about the most extreme form of 'loss of face' available,
being classified as being the group in society involved in
standover activity and drug crime there. They obviously dont
give a stuff about 'loss of face'

RS> The success of asians in school stuff in general
RS> is just a combination of two things, they tend to
RS> have a higher IQ than the dregs of our society,

BG> True, no argument with that at all.

RS> and they have the usual immigrant approach of trying harder and have
RS> a lot more emphasis in their sub society on that sort of achievement.

BG> Sure, that's basically what I'm suggesting anyway.

RS> Nope, you were making a comment about 'loss of face'.
RS> Thats not what 'loss of face' means.

BG> The stuff above about Vi Tran not wishing to shame herself
BG> and/or her family sure sounds like avoiding loss of face to me.

If its true, its still just one person Bill. What matter is
how widespread that attitude is. All you have done is assert
that thats common, without much evidence that thats an important
effect, and considerable evidence that large parts of the
Vietnamese community dont bother about it too much.

RS> The same thing happened with the jews in previous generations,
RS> particularly just after the war. The expectation that you will
RS> try hard to get decent results to get somewhere in a academic
RS> sense is a large part of it. It makes a HELL of a difference
RS> to how kids perform in highschool say.

BG> Yep, and their inherent attitudes almost ALWAYS come from their
BG> parents, either directly or indirectly.  So why the fuck are you
BG> arguing the point when we're essentially saying the same thing?

RS> Coz its got sweet fuck all to do with 'loss of face' thats why.

BG> Another minor digression.  I really think we're more
BG> or less agreeing in principle on the same (or similar)
BG> things, but viewed from different perspectives.

Nope, I dont think 'loss of face' is a very important effect at
all. Parental expectations and the subsociety expectations are tho.
And the reverse too, the kids of dole bludgers often just grow up
in a society where dole bludging is considered to be the norm, and
they often just carry on doing that themselves.

BG> Either that, or you're just intentionally being obnoxious.  |-)

Gets who hates having the hole in his argument pointed out |-)

--- PQWK202