without getting too into the weeds in genetic theory essentially with breeding programs of any animal we are funneling genetics. there is a desired outcome we are trying to accomplish with the breeding program and you have to double up on these qualities. the thing you have to be careful with is when you double up on good qualities you also double up on the bad ones. this isn't a good idea for people, it has to be absolute textbook consummate examples of what you are trying to accomplish and even then you have to be very careful with it. with again, thank you. that is all the time we have. i >> this program was part of the seventh annual savannah book festival. for more information visit savannahbookfestival.org.

>> up next on booktv, "after words," with guest host david plots, editor of slate online magazine. this week amy chua and jed rubenfeld, and their latest book, "the triple package." in it they argue that the most successful ethnic groups in america have all had at least one of three characteristics that constitute the triple package; superiority, insecurity and impulse control. they also say that despite the respective success of the groups, all three traits have a dark side that should be avoided. this program is about an hour. >> host: amy chua and jed rubenfeld, what is the triple package, and where do i get it? >> guest: the triple package is, refers to three qualities or three elements that in combination, only in

combination, propel individuals and certain groups to disproportionate success defined in a certain way. of and the three elements of the to triple package are, first, a sense of exceptionality, and you can get it from lots of different sources, but it's just a feeling that you're special and destined for special things. the second element is almost seemingly the opposite, and that is a dash of insecurity to offset that exceptionality, and that's a feeling that you haven't quite done enough yet, you're not quite good enough yet. and the third element is impulse control of self-discipline and the ability to persevere and resist temptation. it's really the interplay between those first two qualities that i think is at the crux of the book, you know? how does somebody simultaneously feel insecure and superior? and we think that that is what precisely generates drive and this feeling like i need to show

the world, i need to show other people, i need to prove myself. >> host: and then what is the third impulse control contribute then? >> guest: that allows you to be able to do it. [laughter] you know? so you could have all the drive and hunger, de tocqueville said this longing to rise, but if you aren't, i don't know, trained or don't have the ability to kind of hang in there and persist, even very driven people tend to give up. >> host: so is there a precise volumetric reading of each of these? you used the word dash a second ago, amy, for the sense of inferiority. or are they equally balanced? are there gradations there? >> guest: well, it's a great question. what we do think from our research is if you pile on too much with any one of the elements, it produces bad results. it's part of what we discuss when we talk about the pathologies that the triple

package can bring with it. so, yes, it does seem that you need some kind of balance but, boy, we have not figured out how to precisely measure it yet. >> guest: i mean, it's an interesting -- it's an original hypothesis. i think it has enormous expand story power both for the groups that happen to be doing well right now and, actually, for individuals, you know? if you think of people who are very, very driven. but, of course, it's not a -- we haven't been able to test it this a laboratory, so we don't have, know how to titrate it exactly, and that's actually kind of the point of the book. we offer it as a new way to think about success, you know? its dark sides and its psychological underpinnings. and we have a whole chapter on pathology which is, essentially, if you have too much of one or the other, it kind of doesn't work and really bad things happen. and even when they all are working together as this engine of achievement, that has its own pathologies. >> host: so talk about what kind of success you see coming out of the triple package.

>> guest: sure. well, first of all, just to try to allay some possible misunderstandings, we do not define success as material wealth. i mean, the definition of success as far as i'm concerned is pretty simple, success means achieving your goals, whatever they are. we focus on certain conventional metrics of success like income, educational achievement. in the first about six chapters of our book, and the reason for that is, well, it is an important foal for many people -- goal for many people and, second, it is the kind of thing you can measure. we do say, however, in the last few chapters that, one, that kind of success is extremely narrow, two, we think that the triple package element can attribute to success, not the purely material kind. in fact, as individuals who have these qualities grow up in america they tend predictably second generation to have a kind of interesting, creative

destruction relationship between their culture and american culture such that second generation kids in immigrant communities start very typically looking back at their parents' and grandparents' generation and saying, you know what? we don't want to do success the way you told us to. we're not interested in those jobs that a you said were the only ones. and instead they make their own decisions whether it's to be a stand-up comic or artist or something like that. and yet what we found is aspirationally at least these same qualities can help them do that and achieve very different kinds of goals. >> host: uh-huh. so let's talk about the part of the book that i think is most controversial or that people are talking about most which is your identification of particular groups as being embodiments of the triple package. so talk a little wit about which -- a little bit about which groups you identify and how that triple package manifests itself in their success. >> guest: okay. so we, this is a snapshot, you know? and i think that's part of the problem. it's -- people are saying you're

saying these eight groups are better? of course, if you look at the title, it's about the rise and fall of cultural groups. so the groups that are very, very driven and disproportion that itly successful change dramatically over time. you know, there were different groups ten years ago, there will be different groups ten years from now. and we, actually, try to be very, very systematic. we relied kind of straight on census data. we calibrated our own income figures, had a lot of research assistants with empirical skills working and were very transparent. we're kind of going down the ancestry tables. so the census doesn't identify people by religion. that's not allowed anymore. and we explain which groups we exclude, for example, there's an english-americans category, and that's, like, 50 million people in it, and we weren't sure what that was capturing. and we also excluded groups that i think probably have the triple package like latvian-americans and south african-americans because they were under 100,000.

we didn't know what to do with a group that 50 people, you know? and i thought we were pretty systematic, went straight down. we looked at eight groups that were most strikingly disproportionately successful according to these conventional metrics; income, educational attainment. we chose those metrics because they're available, you know? it's very different, difficult to measure artistic success. i mean, although in our section on the jews, actually, most of our focus is on, you know, artistic and, you know, all kinds of different -- >> host: can i interrupt you for one second? you just talked about how groups are not identified by religion, so six of groups are census identified, mormons and jews are not. to to with those, how did you pull data? >> guest: those we looked at alternative measures, and places like the pew foundation and independent researchers do put together income data, and they -- we, you know, we said these dates don't quite match up, and we tried to be pretty systematic, and it's all pretty

transparent. in the case of the mormons, as we discussed, they actually don't have that disproportionately high median household income. and they, for one thing, when you talk about households, they're a much larger percentage of their women do not work. in fact, double the women are, you know, described as housewives. so that's one thing. but we actually chose that group as we with describe because i think it's maybe the most upwardly mobile group in america; that is, we compared the rates, the statistics 30 years ago. you could barely find a hour monoon wall street. a mormon on wall street. and, you know, we kind of lay out all the different axes of their achievement right now including in business schools, law schools, professional schools. and so those are different categories. so we ended up looking at mormons and jews which are religious groups, nonimmigrant groups and kind of going down the tables, indian-americans have a very, very high income level. lebanese and iranian-americans

under that. chinese-americans, let's see, oh, then we also look at nigerian-americans and cuban-americans that -- and we also explain, i mean, they are just extreme outliers for their population groups and also very high rates of upward mobility and very, very strong educational performance. but as we say in the end notes, we could have looked at japanese-americans, could have gone further down the list, and, you know, but we, for space limitations, we looked at these eight groups. >> host: so pick one of these groups. what's your favorite group, jed? >> guest: well, we could talk about the mormons. >> host: the mormons. how do we see triple package in action with mormons this particular? >> guest: sure, great. you know, the starting point of our book was this remarkable fact which many people sensed but we really documented it that there's several groups that are really outperforming the national average in terms of income and educational achievement.

and amy just went through the ones that we focus on. so then we -- and we identified those independently as rigorously as we could. then we started looking at the groups wondering, asking ourself toes are we going to find any cultural commonalities. and before i get to the mormons, why look for cultural commonalities? why not suppose there's something else going on that might explain their success? hopefully, we'll talk about alternative explanations later, but just in a nutshell if you look at something like asian-american academic success, you're instantly struck if you really do your homework and the research by the finding that third generation asian-americans aren't outperforming the rest of the country whereas first and second generation asian-americans score 140 points higher on their s.a.t. tests than the rest of the country. disproving biological, disproving genetic, you know, interrupting this whole discourse and stereotype by showing there's something cultural going on in those

groups, in the families. so that's our starting point is the thought, because we're ruling out alternative explanations that there's something going on in the culture. so we started looking at the cultures and sure enough we found -- and we didn't expect to -- this startling commonality. so in the case of the mormons, they have this chosen people narrative. that is -- and it was borrowed from the jewish experience. i mean, they have their moses, they have an exodus. it's also an inheritance from america's puritans. it's this interesting combination of these two histories. so joseph smith when he found mormonism, he really thinks that he has, you know, discovered a new religion, and his followers believe that they have been sent to earth to redeem the christian church and mankind. and moreover, today they actually believe that their way of life is morally superior, and the words that are used in, you know, one of the leading discussions of mormon culture is that they see themselves as an island of morality in a sea of decay. so they have this very strong sense of chosenness, of

exceptionality. we call it a superiority complex. insecurity, it's fascinating, they deeply feel a sense of rejection, a sense of not being looked on as fully american. they know they've been looked on as a fringe group, a cult group from, you know, a hundred years ago. they were vilified because of their practice of polygamy, and even when they renounced it about a hundred years ago, for decades they have felt on the outside, and, you know, the fact that they had to hear mitt romney's sons being described as creepy because they were so clean cut is an example. and they'll talk about that. they'll tell you that. so they feel, and this will be their words. you can see this described in sociological accounts and in their own autobiographies -- >> and some history of persecution. >> guest: that's right. they were actually hunted down and chased across the country. so they tell themselves this whole story of their insecurity which is both a matter of peril and of being looked down upon. and so they will say words like

we feel a chip on the shoulder. we have to prove ourselves. we have to show the rest of the country that we can be just as good and we can succeed as americans, and they seem to be motivated by that combination of this exceptionality but live anything a society where -- living in a society where they have this outside, persecuted relationship. and finally impulse control. well, it's a fascinating thing, again, it just strikes you in the face when you look at them, they practice practices of habits of impulse control that are different from mainstream americans. these are well known. they don't smoke, they don't drink, they don't drink caffeine or soda, and they start doing this with their kids. and turned out to be extremely relevant to our findings. they don't just suddenly start this when you're adults, they start these habits of impulse control with their kids from preschool. they give them little piggybanks where they have to tithe whatever they get, they have to put 10% away. they start them on practices of, you know, having to go to church

and sit still from a very early age. by the time they're teenagers, mormon kids don't smoke as much, don't drink as much, have less premarital sex. all that stuff's not stereotype, it seems to be a matter of fact. so all three elements are very strongly present in their case. >> host: and what's the beneficial result or, in terms of income or success? what's the outcome that you see? >> guest: well, as with all of groups that we looked at, the mormons are experiencing exceptional rates of upward mobility. now, we can demonstrate that there are some of the other groups -- for some of the other groups. in the mormon case, you know, i worked on wall street 30 years ago, and i remember very well and this is confirmed by many accounts, it was difficult to find a mormon 30 years ago. they just weren't there. and you didn't find them this corporate boardrooms either. yet now today they are powerhouses in some of

america's, you know, best recognized corporations, american express, citigroup, dell, fisher price, sears, huntsman and many, many others, jetblue. i mean, the list actually goes on. so we have the three traits we're talking about, we have extraordinary, an extraordinary, sudden record of success and then, of course, we have a causal hypothesis that these traits are causing the, are causing through a motivation and drive which, by the way, our account can deliver no other alternative account of group success that we're aware of can. >> host: so let's talk a little bit about -- you talked about excluding explanations. some of the people who have criticized your book say setting aside mormons and jews for a second although i'm sure you're going to rope them back in, what you've described is the reason why decline in third generation chinese-americans is they're no longer engaged in that immigrant struggle. immigrants are self-selected to

be ambitious and hard working, and anyone who makes a journey that hard is, of course, going to have that in them and is going to convey a lot of that to their children. so talk about why the triple package is not just immigration. >> guest: well, actually, that part of it we're very sympathetic to, you know? and i don't see why that's a critique. i think that most accounts of success whether you're talking about individual success or groups, what they miss is drive,? [laughter] so if you have class -- say you're born wealthy. of course people who are born wealthy have a leg up. i mean, we totally agree with that. and, you know, but the explanations are, oh, you just came -- you are, you are the children of educated immigrants. that's a big part of our book. of course that gives you an advantage. but what's missing from these accounts is motivation. you know, the wasp elite was the most educated group. they had the most networks. and we're not the first people to say that, you know, in the '40s, '50s, '60s, not only

did they lack the drive, it was a little bit gauche to be striving in this hunger. so to answer your questions, there are two kinds of self-selection high post cease when it comes to just immigrants. i think the jews and the mormons, putting them aside. there's this idea that only immigrants who are succeeding right now are the ones that come over with education, with the skills. and that, unfortunately, is just not true. it's the politically correct explanation which is, you know, we don't have to look into cultures because it all comes from who your parents are. it's definitely a big deal with certain of the groups like indian-americans or, you know, cuban-americans. but it's not, for example, true with chinese-americans. and this is, these findings are replicated not just in the united states, l.a., but also toronto and the u.k. over and over the studies show that the children of totally

uneducated chinese, korean, vietnamese immigrants -- and these are people whose parents sometimes are illiterate, you know? they're factory workers, they're restaurant workers, they're taxi cab drivers. theorizing academically faster than privileged white counterparts, and they're also kind of hitting it out of the park with these test scores. and that's the part that has been hard to get traction on because of course we acknowledge that you're the chiewld of a software engineer, that you have a leg up, right? but there's this other piece of it that is so fascinating. and, you know, even when you're talking about cuban-americans, people want to say, oh, it's oozy. they came over with education. -- it's easy. actually, it was only a third of that first wave that came over as elites, so two-thirds didn't. but let's just say the whole pile came over. of what's missing from those accounts is the mechanism. how does that first generation of immigrants -- let's say i was a doctor back home.

well, i come to this country, and i live in a crowded place, and i have no job because my degree doesn't count here, so i have to work as a janitor or a fruit picker. how does that drive or education, whatever you want to call it, that human capital, get transmitted to the next generation? and that's where we see our book fitting in. we agree that it helps to be an immigrant and that most immigrants who come here, i actually think, have -- i mean, this is of any background, el salvador, you know, sudan -- i actually think refugees disproportionately have the triple package on an individual level. but question is how do you convey those traits to the next generation. and i think that's where the drive comes in. >> host: so there's no, no reason to think that there wouldn't be people many poverty in india who were lazy and not working very hard and absent all triple package. so it's -- you wouldn't, this doesn't -- your book doesn't, doesn't try the say that india should be the most wealthiest place on earth because

indian-americans are doing well. >> guest: no. no, that's backwards. >> guest: this is not a book that makes comparisons between countries. we don't say that indian culture, whatever that might be, ought to have made india a more prosperous country. the best theories that are out there are like why nations fail, and the claim there is that institutions are fundamental, a functioning free market with legal protections and inclusivity as well as political inclusivity. that's what makes nations more or less prosperous. it's american institutions in combination with these cultural traits that allow these people to succeed in this country. >> guest: but it's also -- i like that question because it's not just the institutions that are missing in, you know, india or, you know, cuba, obviously. it's a great question because it clarifies how we're using culture, right? we are not talking about this

essentialist hinduism or 5,000-year confucianism. it's really the interaction of people. it's more immigrant experience. they come over -- yeah, i mean, strong middle kingdom identity. the chinese have a very strong sense of exceptionalism. but once you come to this country, that's all mixed up, right? you're an outsider, you have a funny accent, and it's really this kind of dynamic interplay. >> guest: may i come back to the immigrant selectivity point for one second? >> guest: sure. >> guest: it can't explain yes success. -- jewish success. in addition to that, and this is -- see, there's two ideas of immigrant selectivity. one is they're coming over with higher levels of education and skill, one is they're coming over, they're more bold and motivated. you've got to look at these two things separately. it turns out that over half of chinese immigrants do not come over on those visas and just under half of indian immigrants come over, most of them are not.

so those chinese ones -- and this community's been very well studied -- the chinese who don't come over, they are mostly poor and many of them very poorly educated and yet their kids -- and this has been documented because the it's a large community, people who have gone and done the research, those immigrants are doing just as well as the kids of the other immigrants which is odd. that shows you it's not the parental background that's doing the work. that's already odd this itself. but more important for our purposes, they're doing better than their better educated and better off white peers. that's what we're looking at. why are these groups doing better than the national average, the white average? why are they doing better than better educated white kids? and from families that are higher on socioeconomic level. we're not saying, oh, look, they're doing better than this other look that's a persistently low this many group in america. -- low income group in america. that's not what we're trying to answer. our answer is it's got to be something in the culture and

upbringing. >> host: so you're focusing on the sort of upside, the positive success stories. who are the -- there are plenty of immigrant groups which are not doing as well as chinese-americans are. so if you look at what's a group that if you look is not doing well? >> guest: well, actually, you know, we look at some of the most disadvantaged groups in our book. we treat them quite carefully. and i think we're pretty, i mean, it's like on the first page. we're saying this has nothing to do -- >> host: well, no be, i want an immigrant group. give me an immigrant group that is not doing well. >> guest: okay. there are many refugee groups that are coming over. obviously, they come over with absolutely nothing, so i'm just -- i'll say sudan or the hmong are a very, very poor group. and, you know, the book -- >> host: so why are hmong, why are incomes for hmong low and educational achievement low?

>> guest: well, because it's a snapshot. so we're looking at who -- actually, i think some of these groups, honestly, i think some of these groups that are very poor right now in one generation will rise disproportionately, i do. we just happen to work with these refugee groups in new haven, and i see these qualities. first of all, there are institutional problems. some of them can't get a job. they don't have a work permit, so there are all these things that have nothing to do with how hard they work, it's just discrimination sometimes. and i, if you were asking me why are some of them not at the highest levels of this many, well, some of these people have had their entire families killed, they come over one person, and they are working and working. i believe that if we can track it, they will have disproportionate success. you know, many of these groups. but it's a snapshot in time, so if you look at the poorest income groups, they are often war refugees, and they're often people that have just come through civil conflict and all kinds of, you know, historical reasons.

>> host: i think one question i had about the book is i'm thinking back to the charles murray bell curve controversy which i'm sure you guys, you remember vividly and how tense that was for everyone concerned. and everyone got upset at murray and her nstein, i think, because they were trying to pathologize behavior of groups. i think it's great that you guys are picking out things that are success. i worry that without looking at the other side, you're kind of cherry picking the good stuff. so i want to know what's the negative? if you had to write the opposite book, where would the opposite book land? >> guest: i think that's a totally fair question. number one, as we all know, the murray/hernstein hypothesis was an iq hypothesis. now, we refute that in the book, let's just be very clear. i already mentioned about third generation asian-americans which really undercuts the iq hypothesis. people have studied

chinese-americans, so they've done iq studies, and the finding is that the iq is not different, okay? so we look at that, the book excludes this, in my view, pernicious iq explanation which is unfounded, okay? now, we look at in our book at the amish, that's a group that's poor, and we try to show how they don't have the triple package. it'd be interesting to talk about that, if you want. ..

that's wouldn't be so shocking. what's much more interesting is if you look at the studies they will tell you a very careful study that latino american kid in the communities are not raised with the same academic expectations and recent studies in the book and what they capture our two elements of the package the high expectation on the one hand the parents told the kids we know.

the expectation and the insecurity if you don't do that you're going to disappoint us. and at this analysis has been done and the people conclude that those high expectations are doing some of the work and this goes back 40 years into groups that seem to be more successful discovering time after time. if what we are doing in this book is capturing the experience and that interesting phenomenon of second generation success and third generation decline, that would be exactly what we are trying to do because no

operative explanation can capture that. not like you, can't explain the second and third generation decline him and not views of structural problems inside all of which exists. they can't explain the phenomena that sociologists have found in virtually every immigrant group. this goes back to the italians. second generation decline after that explanation is the only one i know that captures it perfectly. >> host: i want to go back to the negative because this gets at the understanding if we are talking about a cultural trait exclusive to somebody with this history, i would disagree with that but when you're talking about impulse control and behaviors anybody can access some of the biggest supporters have been public school educators. we had so many e-mails.

one example a teacher said i made public teacher and i think about culture and class and success all the time and i see these kids have habits that lead to better grades so i told my son we are going to replicate that. it's almost more demeaning to not talk about this because if you say the only reason some groups are doing better than others is external, it's all discrimination because they had better capital, we need to eliminate discrimination and to change the institution which should be a first priority but that's it. that leaves people with no agency. we get e-mails all the time saying why isn't there a level playing field?

we want to change the world, to back but we want to know what we can do in our own families. study habits are different mentality is. the most interesting study is the reverse marshmallow test. everybody knows the test demonstrated for. you get one marsh one hour two if you wait 15 minutes. we are more successful and family happiness comes to the become a education. last year they ran the test again at the university of rochester but needed a new twist. they told half of the kids if you do this we will give you these art supplies and then they broke their promise and then they ran the marshmallow test. every one of the kids lied to craft the first marshmallow and this goes back to the question

if the society has let you down, if you do not believe you can trust your institutions and if you do not think you can work hard you are going to be rewarding the recovery wa ward d there is no incentive so you should put that together with a triple package. talking to former students in education say teachers at the high school and grade school level should be trained it's not just immigrants work so hard that they believe in the promise of the institution to why cant we kind of build these ideas and acknowledge that certain behavior. for a lot of these people it is almost a luxury. but to build different framework mentalities and maybe we could

do better with the policy. all of the groups that identify do we leave in the american dream in a way not all americans do which is interesting. >> these were highly persecuted groups. >> and they exaggerate their belief in the system and in healthcare the system is yet there seems to be no doubt the institution that is a necessary part of believing you can make it seems to be an important criteria in the groups. >> it's interesting they want to be part. mitt romney wants to run at the time it seems to be poisoned so it's wanting to be a part of

something. >> have to say one more thing about the same topic which is we might want to ask ourselves what kind of conversation we should be able to have on these issues. if you say that kids study habits are responsible for doing better on that a ct people want to say that his cultural racism and if that is the response that must be true i think we have a problem on our hands and we are not able to get the information that we need to many families that might want to help their

kids. >> if that is the case are you going to be the person that goes into the poor african-american communities until people you're not studying hard enough. you don't have impulse control and you don't have a sense of superiority? >> the whole thesis supports early childhood intervention. it is essentially how to inculcate not just children but it could be the parents, grandparents with motivation and long-term perseverance, early childhood intervention programs. we are not trained to make it seem easy it's just in the

history of the success of anti-poverty is why tie your hands behind your back but you're talking about success and mitt romney and i think this is so interesting. one of the downsides of being from the triple package culture and i grew up in this, so i know by virtue of the insecurity that you have wishes i am not accepted well enough for i needo meet my parents expectations or show americans or even better that can force people into narrow forms of success that are the types we are being criticized a the opposite because we say that culture can -- in order to prove to everybody it works so great we can be a doctor or lawyer or run for president we have to be on wall street and the younger generations of the groups almost

all feel and unpleasant pressure and we see this in the asian-american community some people don't read the book because it says you are reinforcing the stereotype that i would suggest reading the pages of it because the idea is the first generation is too narrow and if you can take that energy and focus and be a standup comic or jazz musician or something but apply it to what you care about come he gets the academy award for being the best director. his father apparently says now maybe you can be an academic. >> i want to go to you guys. you are a married couple. i don't know if the audience

knows that. >> i don't know about you but i was raised my parents had a strong sense of exception audi and i think as a shield against majority discrimination. when i was little i was in indiana. if somebody made fun of my accent which are used to have a chinese accent i told my mother about this and she said why do you care about him? if he's making fun of you, who cares in the love of impulse control and discipline of course i am notorious for. you got none of that from your parents and your family. >> what i brought to the table is the insecurity part of the package but one last point of the inner-city education.

we fall into the trap of the false dichotomy as follows. the playing field is level and the meritocracy works great it's all about the individual traces each individual responsible for his own outcomes and then we get into the extreme polar opposite view on the left. it's all about institutions in the structural problems and discrimination. nothing anyone does can make a difference given those problems we just have to be grown-up enough to realize it's both. it's not one or another it's about so yes we need structural reform in the cities and segregation. we have massive preservation to deal with in all kind of education reform but can't we also say there is an individual side and education policies can address those? these are problems people go in

at the age of three or four and they are teaching perseverance, motivation, character and an interest in education in school so they are teaching all the things that would go into it so that makes sense. >> i think we can generalize more. but the jewish case is fascinating and a good case for the triple package because it is no longer an immigrant group and if you ask people they never want to talk about the jews because it is against -- nobody wants to go there even if they secretly think it's a think the second element in security coupled with exceptionalism goes a long way. you were talking about insecurity that okay this is a group that had the holocaust intervened in 1945.

you may be fourth-generation jewish-american but you have this part of history. >> if you're going to make me talk about myself, yes i saw this with my own father so i think that our account is better at expanding jewish success than any account. many people believe it is iq based. i think the studies are not yet believable. if what we are saying is true then what you would be looking for is this a group that replenishes its insecurity over the generations and that would be the surprise that would make it into the exception and as i was saying with my own father he comes over a long time ago. my father is growing up and he should be getting more comfortable and all of a sudden when he is 12 or 13 the holocaust happens. this happens for the whole

generation who should be passing the story onto their kids and instead they have the holocaust and could revive the sense of insecurity it would be damn. now you have israel, too which is the sense of worldwide anti-semitism. they still worry about what happens there. the sons of israel being in peril. jews say this to each other i think there is an element of bearishness and society which i'm not saying i have myself but i think it is widespread. >> i don't want to belabor the jewish question because i love it. are they going to be in the generation? iem a jew and i do not have any

deep insecurity that anyone is coming from your -- i'm not worrying a lot about israel so is it likely that whatever cultural triple package i. have is going to dissipate in my children? >> there have been studies recently suggesting for the first time jewish academic decline. we don't know if that will translate to other incomes are typical decline story but for the first time in lots of metrics where people used to outperform everybody in terms of academic competitions they are not doing it to the same degree and in the 70s there's the war but not for the first time for thethem have to generationfifthh americans are probably more secure in the united states than they have been anywhere the last 2,000 years so we would predict

and expect some jewish decline and there is evidence suggesting that. >> this goes back to the definition of success because of language barriers if you look at the accounts in the book in the 19 tens and 20s they sound like chinese immigrant families. you have to play the piano or violin and that is because they were respectable things. you're afraid your kid isn't going to survive. so now these metrics about physics but this part we have it documented thoroughly other forms of success that now don't have a language barrier they have a broad idea they are directing movies and writing

things. it may not choose to be the physics anymore but it's an immigrant kind of thing to. you can't speak the language then you can do numbers. >> so you wrote a very successful, famous and controversial book about the parenting of your daughters. did the triple package come out of that book at all? >> bv did or not we started thinking about this book before that. in 2008 i taught a seminar on the focus of individual groups and nations into the end of the day the book is about individuals, but we started doing the research, and then we're interrupted by the global firestorm. after things settled down we started working on it but we thought about it before and i

have written books about so-called market dominant minorities in countries that indonesia and africa so i've been interested in the minorities since roughly 2,000. >> how did you decide to work? >> i am disciplined -- i managed all the research. i love culture into digging into the sources and unmasking the resource. he is the analytical big picture person. i am a morning person and he is a night person. we never have to face each other. we have exactly opposite personalities and skills. >> i'm the worst person in the world at taking criticism so i would do some writing and she would edit and books were being thrown at each other in the household but i think it was quite an even distribution of labor. we both did the writing and

editing. you manage the research absolutely true. >> i'm interested in facts and he considers the analytical framework for. >> host: >> guest: we always interact that as what i enjoy doing i'm the one that says i need to get every book ever written on the amish and put together these studies. i think that it's pretty interactive, jokes aside but he's like how do we do about this systematically, you know like with the organization, what's the point going to be. >> i had been writing for almost 20 years about america and the development of the culture that you see in western europe from the society that's got more and more interested in living in the present and when you see it from modern psychology to modern art and its relevance to this book --

>> as opposed to the future or the past or both? >> it could be either. that is one of the things culture does. some cultures ask the members and some direct themselves towards a future of some kind. some told the members you have to live in the now. it has become more appealing to people. the connection is one of the things the triple package seems to do is turn people into gratification machines and that is what runs up against the culture said it was a combination of those interests into the successful minorities in the american culture to live in the moment. >> guest: one of my favorite parts in the book that never comes up is the constitutional

law part of that notes the foundational documents the independence have completely different impulses. the declaration of independence is about the pursuit of happiness and your view on the constitution is -- >> guest: it was an interesting time the declaration of independence and the declaration of happiness come a break from europe that is a live in the moment document into jefferson didn't be leaving constitution because they attempt to the strain people. that is an attempt by people to hide hands behind their back and say in 20 years, 50 years you can't do these things and extend your power more than this. that's what the constitutional structure is. jefferson didn't believe because he thought at any moment people should be able to do what they want and it is a triple package with the declaration being more of a live in the moment

mentality that both of the elements were from the beginning. the rebellious part with the triple package hard work made more money into the individual whether it' it could be economic failure or not this is something new america creates in their free-market capitalist institutions of that every individual is to be measured a success or failure based on their economic success that wasn't true before so you have a new kind of insecurity and also in this kind of rebellious individualism this is the last chapter of the book -- >> host: i'm fixated on the question of whether we are looking forward at the moment or backwards. one thing that is striking to me if you look in particular at the tea party movement there is a political thinking on the right which is living 50 years ago or 100 years ago what happens when you get hung up on that?

it seems you get wrapped up in the past and can't go forward. >> guest: there should be to two kind of pathology one is getting caught in the past and one in the present. what is productive for achieving your long-term goals and the outlook to look for what you think you want to look for and what you are goals are and have the wherewithal to forgo the present satisfaction in the service of achieving the long-term goal by getting hung up in the past or being interested in immediate gratification or living in the present. >> talk aboutalking about it abe amish. is there an example in the book is a very strong culture which

has a lot of strengths that does not have the traditional succe success. >> guest: we love this case because it highlights how we are using the terms. so the amish have the most impulse control of almost any group in america. electricity, you know, just so many structures from early on. so we know in both control is one element. whether or not they have a superiority complex if you ask them they would say absolutely not. we be leaving humility that we don't even want our children to go to high school because that could bring a high mindedness. but we touch on whether or not it could be a superiority based on we have the most humility. but the most interesting thing is insecurity because this highlights how we are using the term in the sense of i haven't

proven myself to others here whether it's my famil by familyr society and precisely with the amish live by is if we don't accept a modern world value we don't want our people to feel like they need to strive and do what some believe to society as. the whole religion is based on that and the results -- there's a fascinating section some of the kids are playing baseball and that's fine until some of them want to win and you can't be competitive but throughout his reasons they are among the poorest groups in the united states because they don't want to be successful in that way. there is a certain group where in the polish culture it is considered sinful.

if you look at white protestant society at a certain time and place its something you wouldn't want to show. i'm talking about the mid-20 century. they lack the element of insecurity as we define it so the amish teach their children to find security in their faith into traditional practices. it's feeling you're not good enough, you have to do more and they teach their kids you should feel good enough with the simple things we have similarly but in a completely different way of privileged whites in america but this is also true in england.

and don't feel like you have to prove yourself. that would be embarrassing and uc in some cases -- they offer the impulse control but no insecurity and according to this article though rising from where they started. it was a favorable review. >> let's talk about the united states as it relates to the document. you both seem worried that we were a triple package nation. is it possible to become more triple package do you define

yourself in opposition to something? this is kind of a fun thought experiment. we do say that in some ways it was born with these elements. everybody knows about american exceptionalism. we always had a history of being the underdog. it looked down on by europe and the need to show ourselves as the soviet union and the origins of control we don't need to complete that it's always been questioning authority which makes america what it is and you have these emigrants in the triple package element but some of that gets explored and everybody isn't working overtime. what