[charlesdm]

Are you an American? I'm European, and maybe this is just personal experience / a personal anecdote, but whenever I've had conversations with an American I found that they tend to always be really excited and then casually ignore any further communication. It's much harder to figure out for me what an American _actually_ means vs say a Belgian or a British person. No point in being an open person if you're only touting positive things.

I agree with your statement in principle, but at the same time, people need to be willing to give some meaningful comments. If I'm trying to break through in a rock band, I want criticism so I can figure out how to improve. Being told "Good performance brah", if you know you sucked, sucks.

[maroonblazer]

I'm an American and my 10 yr old son is in an organized band that includes a weekly private lesson and a public performance. I agree with skywhopper that there's a time and place for criticism and right after the show, especially at that age, is not it.

Also, part of the objective of having the public performance is to simply get kids comfortable performing publicly. My kid was practically shitting himself before the show, he was so nervous about playing in front of a crowd. So, a healthy part of the applause is recognition that they simply performed publicly. It's likely that greeting them with criticism of their playing as they walk off the stage won't do much to encourage them to try it again.

[NTDF9]

>> It's likely that greeting them with criticism of their playing as they walk off the stage won't do much to encourage them to try it again.

There's a way to frame it. At the end of a band performance, the audience (even if it is just 3-4 people) is encouraged to clap, even if the performance sucked. Usually, they do clap. This is enough of a positive reinforcement.

When the whole thing is over, before packing up, have a 15 minute meeting in which all you do is say,

"Great performance guys. You did a,b,c really well. Jeff, I saw you listened to my instruction. Hi five! Stacy, you did a good job. There were some mistakes in your chord transitions, let's talk about that so you can do it better next time"

Kids should grow up knowing they are doing well but aren't perfect yet. Let's keep improving until we get there.

[gluggymug]

You don't teach kids I assume. I do. I am a judo coach of kids.

I think the point is : It is not really up to the parents to be so critical of their kids. They should be supportive and positive.

It is really up to the coach to provide the technical feedback and it is more beneficial to assess performance at the next practice when the kids are back in a learning mode.

At that point they are mentally ready to practice over their problem areas straight away.

Parents can set their kids back by berating them at the wrong time.

[rimantas]

Yeah, it's really not up to the parents to raise their kids. It's scarry how we get to this point where people write this kind of shit with a straight face.

[germinalphrase]

It's less an issue of parents raising/not raising their kids, than it is knowing what is productive and unproductive pressure.

Mike Matheny - the manager of the St. Louis Cardinals - wrote a letter to parents while he was coaching his son's little league team that touches on this idea. The whole thing is worth reading, but this is primarily his thesis:

"I believe that the biggest role of the parent is to be a silent source of encouragement. I think if you ask most boys what they would want their parents to do during the game; they would say "NOTHING". Once again, this is ALL about the boys. I believe that a little league parent feels that they must participate with loud cheering and "Come on, let's go, you can do it", which just adds more pressure to the kids. I will be putting plenty of pressure on these boys to play the game the right way with class, and respect, and they will put too much pressure on themselves and each other already. You as parents need to be the silent, constant, source of support."

Link to full letter: www.mac-n-seitz.com/teams/mike-matheny-letter.html

[kasey_junk]

I've coached kids martial arts before as well, and while I wouldn't go so far as to say parents shouldn't criticize their kids, I will say that I much prefer the parents that are "supportive in public, critical in private".

It is quite literally my job as a coach to point out a kids mistakes. They handle it really well nearly universally. But the overly critical parents (you can see them coming a long way off) cause so much negative reactions it makes my job harder.

And quite simply, anyone who has coached anything knows that being critical at the time of the event is almost universally detrimental (and not just for kids). Your mind/body is just not ready for coaching at the end of an adrenal dump event.

You need distance to evaluate performance, and the emotional burden of parent/kid relationships makes that more true not less.

[lbebber]

When I was younger I could not care less about my parent's feedback about my heavy metal guitar skills - I did not expect them to understand anything about the music I was playing and I'd chalk up any criticism on them not liking the style - but I did care whether they were supportive or not.

[ryanmarsh]

Judo teacher is right. Having mom and dad be supportive while the instructor is tough can be the right balance. Most kids can't objectively separate their performance from their parents love and acceptance.

[roel_v]

Raising the children is supporting them, and helping them get over the fear of performing publicly (or whatever). It's not their job to be the technical coach of whatever they want to learn.

[BeetleB]

>Raising the children is supporting them, and helping them get over the fear of performing publicly (or whatever). It's not their job to be the technical coach of whatever they want to learn.

Would you apply the same to, say, mathematics? Or chemistry? Or programming? Do you think the parents should not give their kids feedback on these subjects, and instead leave it to the teacher (aka technical coach)?

[forgetsusername]

>It's not their job to be the technical coach of whatever they want to learn.

That's insane. Of course it is!

Until their skill in a subject surpasses yours, you're the only technical coach.

[gluggymug]

Parents can raise them but the coach is the coach.

I don't allow parents to do the "tiger mode" criticism on the sidelines because it is not objective. The parents have emotional investment in winning.

[NTDF9]

The exact timing of the feedback session is debatable. It could be in a wrap up session, next training session or whatever.

More importantly, it should be private and only for the eyes and ears of the team/band/player.

[vacri]

Raising your kids properly means loving them, yes, but not to the point that you outsource teaching them how to be resilient.

[wernercd]

You can be supportive and positive... and honest.

Being supportive of shitty performances is dishonest and shitty.

Then again... the "parents" of today cry fits if their kid plays like crap and doesn't get some sort of participation award.

[gluggymug]

A parent telling their child they had a shitty performance is not supportive or positive.

A negative attitude coming from the parent can really upset the child and they won't learn anything from it.

As a coach I can't tell a parent what to say to their kid at home after they have a poor performance but I usually advise them to try cheer their kid up not cut them down.

It is my role as coach to provide the objective criticism not the parent's. It matters where the criticism comes from.

This is a part of the problem with the original article. Parents are too emotionally involved to teach their kids. They think their kid is special and then they constantly compare them against other kids and then they put the parental pressure on to the child. It isn't helping.

[charlesdm]

Right: 10yo - agree. But once you're past a certain age, e.g. 14-15, probably not? Then again, I don't think people should be rewarded either for showing up or putting in an effort. But for younger kids (e.g. < 14yo) it's definitely not an issue + good that you want to get them to experience new things.

Maybe I have different view on things, but if I look back at how much focus was put on putting in effort (and not actually achieving anything) during my high school years, then I think we have things wrong to some extent. It's even worse today than it was before -- I have a friend who works in a school and he says it's great that grading is being phased out.. not sure whether I agree on that.

[squeaky-clean]

If your friend was learning to code, and wrote a tetris clone, would you congratulate them on their first major project, or would you critique their sloppy code? They had to develop and live with that codebase, maybe for several days or more. They're probably aware of some things that suck about it, but had to stick with it (otherwise you never finish). Having someone criticize your code, variable names, lack of patterns without asking would be really demoralizing.

There's a difference between a well written function, and an entire application that's well organized and thought out. And there's a difference between playing in your garage and playing on stage.

Did the band suck because they couldn't play? Or did they suck because they were nervous? Well the only way to get over that is to play in front of people more.

I also think there should be a difference in expectations depending on where/what you're seeing. You have every right to criticize a group playing Madison Square Garden. But there's a reason the 14 year olds are playing O'Mallys Pub on a Tuesday, or the Ernie Ball stage at Warped Tour, and not the main stages or an arena.

What's particularly awesome and worth congratulating is watching a band of teenagers suck on stage, and then watching them a month later suck a little less. We should be striving for "better" rather than "great", in my opinion.

[gutnor]

There is a lot of assumption in this discussion like there is nothing between blind encouragement and stark criticism.

You want you son/friend to learn to code and his first project is copy-pasta from a book. Fantastic. Actually doing something is by far the number 1 challenge people never overcome.

Second project is also copy-pasta, that's only fantastic if you son/friend learn to be a typist. He and You both know he can do that. Does not mean you need to trash him, but showing the same enthusiasm as with the first project is counter productive, instead you should probably encourage him to tinker a bit with the program.

Challenge needs to grow. Sure you don't want to discourage a beginner showing how far he is from the mountain summit, but after climbing a step you need to show him the next one.

[m_mueller]

Exactly. Being supportive is not the same as putting everything they do on a pedestal and never have any constructive criticism ever. It's all about thr situation and how you frame it.

[sheepmullet]

In reality it depends so much on the context. People are primed for learning right after finishing a task.

Is my friend just giving coding a go or are they trying to get a dev job?

Is my friend trying to show me what they have built or asking for help improving the quality of their code?

Etc etc.

Likewise is this a 14 year old athlete trying to compete at the state level? Or a 14 year old trying out football because his friends play?

[squeaky-clean]

Great points. I imagined the friend learning as a hobby, but didn't mention it in the post. If they were learning for a job or homework I would definitely be more eager to offer criticism and criticize more heavily.

[charlesdm]

There's definitely a difference between the result, and the way something was built or put together. I'd congratulate them on the result and tell them what they did right, code wise. I'd also perhaps point out some (major) areas where they could've done better, so they could take that knowledge and use it in the next app or game they decide to build.

[mgalka]

What country are you from? In my experience Americas fall somewhere in the middle in terms of directness, compared to European countries.

I lived in the UK for a few years and found Brits very hard to read / resistant to confrontation. On the other hand, I'm married to a Spaniard, and when I'm over there, it's sometimes a bit uncomfortable how direct and open people are.

[charlesdm]

Belgium. It's not necessarily the directness that I mind, it's the fact that often people are (excuse my language) full of shit. They say A, but actually mean B. Which is a trait, for example, the British have as well, but one I seem to understand a lot better than when I'm dealing with Americans.

[DavidAdams]

Americans have a reputation for saying things like "let's do lunch sometime" as a sort of vague statement of agreeableness and intention to stay in contact, whereas, let's say, Swedish people would consider that to be a straightforward intention to book a lunch date.

[nisse72]

Swedish pleasantries 101:

Sure! Let's do lunch! Week 42? No my in-laws will be visiting that week. Week 43? Sorry, I have a dentist appointment that week. Week 44, no I can't then, but maybe week 45? Oh, we have a christmas thing that week. Week 46? I'm not sure, but I think I need to keep that week open. How about we get back in touch after the holidays? Absolutely. Rinse and repeat.

[jrochkind1]

Ha, that's because Swedish people would never say that to someone they haven't known for 10 years. :)

[kasey_junk]

> Swedish people would consider that to be a straightforward intention to book a lunch date

I don't know Swedish from Martian, but I'm surprised the language doesn't have "pleasantries". They seem near universal.

I know that I (as an American) have had uncomfortable experiences with translated Chinese for instance, assuming someone was asking impertinent questions when it was really just them being polite.

[m_mueller]

I'm Swiss and I think it's kind of the same thing. Don't look there for pleasantries. Hey Buddy! Hmm why iz zhat strange person calling me a 'Buddy', I don't even know him!

I think most germanic languages are just much more focused on information content. On the other hand I can get into deep discussions with strangers, even disagreeing with each other, but not get emotional in any way, actually even enjoying the exchange. With Americans I feel there's a mountain of smalltalk and pleasantries to conquer until you can start being sincere. However that might also just me not understanding the culture enough to do that correctly.

[charlesdm]

That is a pretty good example of what I mean.

[oldmanjay]

I've never met a European who wasn't as full of shit as anyone else. I suppose Belgians may be magical in that regard but I suspect not.

[hindsightbias]

The Belgians I've known simply want a straight answer.

Americans will make up a hundred reasons to not do something when they don't have a technical leg to stand on. I was starting to hate this Belgian guy because he wanted something done and I didn't want to spend the time required to do it. Finally, after coming up with all sorts of excuses, I just told him the truth and thought he'd storm out.

He just said "Fine! Now we can go have a beer"

[charlesdm]

Belgians are definitely also full of shit, but in our own special way. :-) I guess it’s more of a cultural thing, where you expect something and reality is something else.

[roel_v]

I'm Belgian but I haven't lived there for many years. I'm not sure if you still live there, but I do not support your position at all. Belgians are just as ambiguous in communication as anyone else. In a different way, maybe, but they're certainly (overall) not direct.

[tajen]

Among "opportunity for improvement" and "a challenge", my preferred wording came from an American war movie: "Boss, we have a situation" was translated in French with "Boss, we have a problem". As if the original movie's character meant there was an interesting "new situation" about natural water cooling the nuclear reactor, while the French translation acknowledged that it could be a problem to have water pouring in a nuclear submarine at -3000 feet...

[trylist]

Hmm, any American would immediately understand that "situation" meant "problem" in this context. To Americans, that is direct. It's not a fluff word avoiding saying "problem", it means "problem".

[plandis]

That kinds of seems like you're looking at a different culture of people from your own perspective.

Try to look at it from the other point of view rather than writing it off because it is not your "one true way".

[alasdair_]

Where in the UK did you live?

The Scots and Irish can be brutally direct, while a Londoner will take great pains to avoid confrontation (in general).

[mgalka]

Yes, you're right. Should have said English. I lived in London.

[reflexive]

Maybe this is part of why a lot more popular bands come from the US than from Europe?

Not to be glib, but when I lived in Europe I was shocked at how many unknown American bands they would fly out to play at tiny venues (bars, "underground" clubs) every weekend. I asked, don't you have your own unknown bands that rehearse in garages and dorm rooms? It turns out: not so much, not nearly to the level that this exists in America.

So maybe the difference is that Europeans like to shit all over their friends' bands?

[Phr0ztByte]

Band popularity has a lot to do with marketing. If you are looking at the size of European countries they have just as many influential artists as the US. UK and Sweden in particular.

[reflexive]

Can you recommend any Swedish acts? I thought of Junior Senior and Röyksopp but it turns out they're Danish and Norwegian.

[Anthony-G]

There’s a Wikipedia page for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Sweden

Artists I particularly like are Robyn (pop), The Knife (electronic/“IDM”), Fever Ray (one half of The Knife), The Cardigans (pop), Lykke Li (indie pop), iamamiwhoami (experimental electronic) Opeth (death metal), Kleerup (electronic dance), Neneh Cherry (pop/hip-hop), José González (indie pop). Note: genres aren’t particularly useful but I thought some indication of what the artist is like is better than none.

If you like Röyksopp, I’d recommend checking out Kleerup, The Knife, iamamiwhoami, Lykke Li and Fever Ray.

Also, you may not know the name but you’ll be very familiar with the songs written and/or produced by Max Martin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Martin

[wott]

Americans get excited about the most commonplace things like they were 12-year old virgins. You can also see it here when some idiotic startup comes up with an idiotic business model. I can never decide if they are serious or not.

Same in sports. They all go full hysterical mode when they qualify for the next round of 8. Er... boy, you do this every week, you haven't failed reaching the final once in the last 3 years, why do you and your team mates and your family need to overplay it so much as if you accomplished anything special? Do other players/athletes from other countries need to do the same? No.

I can't see the point to spread and spread and spread on things which have just been done how they should be done. Acknowledge them and move to the stuff which went wrong or can be improved, that's more interesting.

About making a fuss about nothing, I remember that time when I visited the USA as a teenager, and when we left most of the American adults began to cry (after we managed to escape from the bloody hugs. I don't know who invented hugs, but I hate him.). We looked at each other, wondering what was going on. It seemed our departure was something big, so we tried to force ourselves to do the same but we didn't manage to shed a tear. So we kids had to witness all these grown-ups crying for nothing. That scene shocked me, I remember it after 25 years.

(Okay, one possible explanation was that they may have thought that we were sent back to slavery in a third-world commie state, since God knows all countries don't have the luck to be in northern America.)

[warlox]

> after we managed to escape from the bloody hugs. I don't know who invented hugs, but I hate him.

Yet you're from France, where people kiss each other as a greeting.