directs us to do, question do, and that includes capturing and detaining high-level terrorist, lethal operations against terrorist, whole mass of financial activities to get at the al qaeda money machine, things we sometimes thought about at cia in the years before but were so -- they were so risky and so aggressive that no president, we knew, would ever authorize it. but this time i knew that we were going to be asked to do things we had never done before. so i was blue-skying it. >> host: it turns out you were very much on the mark. the cia was the lead agency, way before the defense department in going into afghanistan and trying to pick up individual, high-value targets they were called, leaders of al qaeda, and at a certain point they capture one of the biggest, a bade da, who is the logistics head of al qaeda, helped plan 9/11, and within a couple of weeks, maybe

two weeks, the interrogators from fbi don't feel like they're getting anywhere. and they're asking for permission to do a whole host of things we come to know as enhanced interrogation. >> guest: actually at the time, -- also in that interim between 9/11 and late march when he was captured, we constructed our first what came to be known as black stripe. we knew we were going to -- hopefully grab some high level al qaeda guys and we needed a place to put them. so we had constructed this secret prison overseas. >> host: can you tell us where? >> guest: nice try. that's one of the few remaining secrets of the interrogation program, which is the location -- precise locations of the black sites. so i can't.

anyway, the -- he was first interrogated -- first he was shot up badly when he was captured so he flew doors from johns hop kins to patch him up. but he wasn't talking. now, it was the interrogation team at that point -- i didn't actually precisely know this at the time but it was both the cia and fbi interrogators. learned much late that's right the fbi interrogators thought they were making progress. our guys were convinced he was holding back and being brazen and he knew what we wanted to hear, and next attack, but he wasn't going to tell us. so that was how -- it was our people, not the fbi really, that were convinced he was stonewalling and some new departure was needed in the interrogation regime. >> host: that's when they dom you and they say, this is what

we have and you say, tell me exactly what its you want to do? and don't spare me my details because you're going to have to make the decision at that time that point whether it's legal, and so they describe just quickly, attention, grasp, walling, facial hold, insult, slap, cramps, confinement, which is a big box that you can stand in or small box for fewer hours that you can't stand in. stress positions, wall standing, meant to strain your muscles. sleep deprivation, and most controversial, waterboarding. what i found interesting here is the description of how you felt after they explained this to you, which in the book you say, left you largely speechless. some techniques they described sounded like something out of the three stooges. slapstick routine. others sounded sadistic and

terrifying. things you never thought about before or were unthinkable before that. and certainly potentially transgressed the federal antitorture statutes, and then there's a scene in which you go outside the agency, walking on the grounds, smoking a cigar, trying to take this all in, knowing you're going to be responsible for making that decision, not only whether it's legal but then if you were to decide otherwise, that you would be the person who is -- on whose shoulders this would rest, and. >> guest: yes. >> host: so, were you weighing -- what were you weighing at the time? >> guest: well, it's very hard. i probably didn't succeed entirely in trying to describe what it was like back then. what i felt like back then, being basically smacked with all

these new proposed techniques. i had no idea what waterboarding was before our i was briefed by our counterterrorism agency. but this is just a few months since anytime time was of the essence -- since 9/11. the time was of the essence. the fear and dread round the country, wasn't a question of if there was going to be a second attacker it was when. so, it wasn't time for deliberation. as you noted, in most of my career i never had to work -- deal with the u.s. torture -- anti-torture statute so is i had no idea what the legal line was, but some techniques, waterboarding, and another one i wasn't able to describe in the book but was never implemented but if anything more terrifying than waterboard. i had to pros all this and i

didn't have a lot of time, and i could have -- right then and there, this program germinated out of cia. didn't come from the white house or anywhere else. it was inside the building. had not left the building, just ideas our people had. so was chief legal officer, been there a long time, knew a lot of these people, had some credibility, influenced -- i know could i have right then and there sort of stopped it before it started and say, at least more aggressive techniques, forget it. they're just real risky. i had been at the agency long enough at that point to know when the agency -- something was going to get the agency in trouble, and i knew sooner or later these things would get the agency in trouble. so i could have -- i'm confident i could have stopped them. but then as i was walking around the building, pondering all this, thought to myself, well, our experts are saying we have

zabada in custody. if anyone knows about a second attack it's him, and he is basically making no bones about it that he knew what we wanted to know and we couldn't make him tell. so, i was playing out this scenario in my head. i could have stopped it right there i could have stopped an idea that our experts, our career analysts, psychologists, operators, thought were measures, albeit unprecedented but were the only way to get that information out of him. and i would have stopped them and point out the scenario further it was a second massive attack on the homeland, bodies lying everywhere, and in the aftermath i would have known, myself i would have known, that we didn't -- because of me, we didn't take the measures that our professionals thought were essential, and this is what happened as a result. and keep in mind,

parenthetically, we were being accused right after 9/11 by everybody, really, over having been too risk avers before 9/11, we weren't aggressive enough, too timid, and here was me the lawyer, basically the risk avers, and. >> host: in a way responsible for the next attack that's correct what you're thinking. >> guest: at least partly responsible. i would have known that and i'm sure the ensuing investigation would have uncovered that. and in the final analysis, i simply couldn't countenance the thought of having to live with that kind of scenario. >> host: so, had you looked at waterboarding, you would have found that the u.s. did hang some japanese soldiers that used it in world war ii because we considered it waterboarding and that spanish inquisition used and it considered it torture back then.

there is actually a history of waterboarding used overseas, although we used it in the philippines and those people got court-martialed. did you have a legal staff that you asked to look at the history of waterboarding or -- >> guest: yeah, we did. and we also did as much research as we could hurriedly about the torture -- i remember them coming back and saying, look, this waterboarding -- the word has this history that you described. i remember it sounded like the khmer rouge were doing it. and that was one of the reasons why i decided that i was not going to make this final call. it was just too close, given these precedents, i just was not going to certainly not going approve waterboarding.

so that's what led to us go immediately to the department of justice to get a definitive legal review of the entire program, but especially waterboarding and the way that our people proposed to carry it out. >> host: and they end up going to the office of legal counsel, the white house legal team, and they end up approving it in memos to you, and to the do and others. looking back now, -- let me just ask one other question. so, if you thought that there was a history in which this was -- your people unearthed the history in which this was considered torture, i can see how you might be worried your people, even if the white house says okay, your people might be

vulnerable at some point when, again, you know, the pendulum swings and people are starting to rethink. was that also a calculation in your mind, that -- >> guest: yeah. yeah. i thought -- the agency during my time -- there was precedence for us, for very important significant new legal questions, for us to go to the office of legal counsel and the justice department, ultimately the final binding legal are arbiter in the executive branch. this, of course, the interrogation program was -- made everything else pale by comparison. i thought, and certainly the precedence had been such i wanted something definitive and very detailed. especially if they're going to approve these techniques. to basically give the agency my

belief was maximum legal protection and especially mindful not of people at my level on the seventh floor executive but s12-s, 13's, that actually carried out the programs. and experience taught me olc opinions are binding, as good as gold, and basically make our people secure. >> host: we talk about waterboarding a lot, but actually it's sleep deprivation that seems to be in -- in your book you said that is one of the methods some of your interrogators believe broke one of the detainees, and you also say that is what kole colin powell, who was the secretary of state at the time, was most concerned about and rumsfeld used to walk out of the room.

didn't want to hear about any of this. those must have rung alarm bells for you. >> guest: you're referring to national security council principles meetings that were held regularly, actually in the -- during the course of the interrogation program. wasn't just cia doing this on its own. this was all of the policymakers were briefed regularly on what the techniques were, how they were being implemented, and i would go to some of these meetings bass a back bencher with the cia director, and at the table and i would observe reactions, and i -- it was fascinating. >> host: did it make your nervous sometimes? >> guest: yeah. it was -- certain sense of for boding. i said in the book that waterboarding was laid out in detail on how we were using it at the time. i don't remember a lot of debate

or concern or hand-wringing or objections to waterboarding, but i was struck by colin powell's body language and demeanor. he gave off every possible vibe of not wanting to be in that room. but when he did speak up, i was struck by the fact -- of course given his extensive distinguished military background he would know this -- he seemed to view sleep deprivation as the most brutal of all the techniques, which i thought was fascinating. rumsfeld, as you said -- he would try to avoid all these meetings, and the ones he couldn't avoid, these are principals meetings so he tried to but couldn't delegate it. but he didn't want -- just simply didn't want to know about any of this. i don't think he had any moral objections to it but the savvy politician, he didn't want to be touch withed especially after an

an gu graib. >> oo you're there representing the agency so you've been out now for four years. you heard the debate about whether this constitutes torture. i have to say after understanding what your role as a lawyer to represent your client and to protect them, i just definitely get the impression by the way you talk about it that you actually -- this is my question -- in these intervening years, that you consider this torture. that it is not something less. especially in combination and i'm wondering, there are a lot of -- if your people were protected, which they are -- nobody is going to go back and say the people who said this was okay to use these techniques, we're going to go and cause them

trouble now. but is there a reason that you think it's necessary to speak in the most honest way about these now and do you think that these techniques did amount to torture? >> guest: no, i didn't. i don't. again, maybe because i'm a lawyer, but torture is defined in a u.s. statute. i mean, they were brutal. they were harsh. some of them were scary. but i personally don't think they crossed the line into torture. i didn't -- i think some were close. didn't think that back then. i certainly -- once i got the opinion from the department of justice addressing the program, that the techniques did not cross the legal line into torture. so, -- and i still don't believe

that. but one after the thing i tried to do in the book was -- certainly not be a cheerleader for this program, because it did get a lot of news the agency in the kind of trouble i anticipated at the beginning. so, i wasn't alone on this. no one was deeply involved in this practice it went on for six years. ever, ever were like enthusiastic boosters of it. if we thought, if we thought that the program was not working, that it wasn't yielding results, some critics have charged, we wouldn't have done it. we wouldn't have continued it. i certainly wouldn't continue it. it was growing politically toxic by the month. so, i think -- i don't think it was torture.

and i also think it yielded benefits. listening to feedback from the analysts and cia, is was convinced because they were convinced, it was providing worthwhile and hugely important intelligence. >> host: so, there is a -- certain lay body of work that suggests many people throughout the world believe that this is -- amounts to torture and it has damaged our standing in the world in some important way, and these just aren't what some people might call human rights liberals and also people like thomas pickerring, who was involved in a study on this, who said we need to address the world on this. do you see any value to that? even though you might not think it's torture and didn't break the law, but it was something that so many other people do believe is and maybe in the end

it's a question of judgment? should we somehow address this chapter in our history? in the right way? >> guest: absolutely. all of those, not just the pickerring but there were a lot of imminent scholars, politicians, experts around the world certainly, and also here in the u.s., who believed that, that they consider it being a moral stain. so, no, i -- i don't -- i certainly don't reject that contention, and -- yeah, let's have a -- have it -- air it out. >> host: one of the ways that could happen is if the senate intelligence committee, which has a very large volumous report on this that is still all

classified, should that be released to air this in its entirety? >> guest: i do. obviously i have no idea what is in it. >> host: you probably know pretty much. >> guest: well -- >> host: you know what went on. >> guest: from what i read in the media about what it contains, i gather it's going to largely conclude that the program was worthless, largely worthless, and that the information that derived from it, the stuff that was valuable could have been acquired without resorting. so that's apparently the storyline, and as you say, it is 50,000-footnotes. a couple things about it, though. first of all, the --

$6 million for four years. for whatever reason they never interviewed anyone at cia about the program. i don't know about others at the cia but i was out. i would have been lane -- happen to be interviewed for it how could somebody do a comprehensive review just by reviewing the written record. secondly it's not a bipartisan report. it's done strictly by the democratic members. so i think you have to take that into account. >> host: you can see the republicans dissent if they declined. >> guest: and also the final thing is, i'm told the cia has drafted a rather lengthy and strong rebuttal to many of the premises and concludes. so, sure, it's $6 million.

american taxpayers footed the bill for this. let's have them -- make the appropriate redactions and release the cia rebuttal so people can -- who are so inclined can read the whole thing. but, sure, i think -- you know, dam mitt, if it's not relead leased, it's going to get leaked so let's release it. >> host: one reason that i can see it not being released is that someone in the government who has the power to say so, could say, well, it will damage our relationships overseas because the secret prisons for one thing, relied on relationships with other countries who house these prisons and promises that this would remain secretment however, as you know, the european council -- the council of europe, other governments overseas, have been investigating this. there are several countries whose names are repeated about the fact they probably had these

or did have these. you have been inside and watched these revelations about other countries come out, and isn't it true that over time, these relationships usually repair themselves pretty quickly? because those countries still have a national interest in working with us? >> guest: yes, yes. i think -- i think that's right. i think -- i mean, we can seive it now in the context of the snowden leaks and revelations, that the foreign governments are up in arms and -- my experience was that whatever tensions, whatever breaks in relations, they get repaired over time. intelligence services need each other, and also keep in mind some of these protests in my experience, when cia programs have been leaked, foreign government, foreign leaders, get

in high dungeon, behind the scenes, the intelligence services are reaching out to cia, basically saying, look, we have to say these things publicly. this is a huge political issue. but we're going to keep working together. basically, don't take this too hard. and just something we have to do. >> host: why is that? why do they do that. >> guest: well, i think -- they know they have to work with cia, with the u.s. intelligence community. for one thing we're the source of many -- much of the intelligence that these countries have about -- in the terrorism arena, threats to their country. they don't want to shut off the spigot of cia information. not because they love cia but they need us. and so it's inevitable, and i think the culture of spy organizations, i won't say

cynical but it's realistic, this, too will pass. >> host: you know where the prisons and are you look at those relationships, were any of them permanently ruptured? >> guest: not that i'm aware of. >> host: on the contrary. >> guest: yeah. it's uncomfortable, embarrassing. but i don't think any damage is permanent. >> host: so, can you talk for a minute -- it's not in your book but you referred to it and again you're in the perfect spot to reflect on it for all the reasons you just stated, but the snowden documents and what that has revealed. there's some people that are saying he should get some kind of deal for telling the government what he released. first talk about what is your feeling about the revelations? were you surprised to learn that the nsa was doing, the extent

they were doing it? >> guest: the relations cover such a wide swath of activities. some of what has come out publicly, i wasn't surprised about it. i knew what nsa was doing at the time. on the electronic surveillance -- >> host: metadata collecting. >> guest: yeah. so that wasn't a surprise. and surely wasn't a surprise about the electronic surveillance aclu different -- activities overseas against foreign governments. none of that was a surprise. what was a surprise to me was the massive amount of data and information snowden had access to. i mean, some of the revelations -- they're coming out every few days, but i read the latest revelation and think to myself, ier in even knew that was going on. so what i'm saying is this 29-year-old, a contractor sit

naughts some remote outpost in hawaii can get to stuff that i, the chief legal officer of cia, i can't have got ton that. >> host: do you think it's created a worthwhile debate, as we wrap up sneer. >> guest: i think the debate is good on the metadata and the issue of u.s. surveillance -- surveillance of u.s. phone records. that's valuable and fruitful. i wish it had come about a different way. don't think that would honestly happen without the snowden disclosure. but he disclosed so much else, that had no to do with american constitution. i think it's hugely damaging, and that reprehensible. >> host: is its damaging because technology can't adapt quickly enough to do something differently? you just said many of these

countries are going to continue working with us. >> guest: yeah. inevitably. but it will have a chilling effect for a while. there will be more reluctance on their part to share what they have, and while it's not going to be permanent, what happens if there's some shard of information out there about a terrorist attack and for whatever reason, because of political climate, because of what snowden created, that information is not passed? that's what i worry about. >> host: do you -- this is my last question -- where our government and certainly the cia, too, needs to just assume that things are going to get out and they -- in other words, secrets will not remain secret, especially in this environment where we depend on the internet or i.t. to keep the secrets? and they have to calibrate that and act differently? >> guest: yeah. talked about this before. leaks are inevitable.

there were leaks when i joined cia 35 years ago. they're going to be leaks 35 years from now. leaks or a fact of life in the intelligence business and the u.s. -- the community, as you know. so we have to just live with that and reconcile it. leaks have gotten bigger and more inexorable seemingly. but we do have to factor that in. our national leaders, intelligence leadership have to factor in that inevitable and what they're planning. >> host: thank you so much, john, and enjoy your book. good luck. >> guest: thank you. >> here's a look at the primetime schedule saturday night on c-span2...

>>host: of what is the triple packaging and where do i get it? >>guest: the three qualities or elements that in combination propelled individuals to disproportionate six us. the three elements of the triple package ra sense of the exception of the the you can get it from different sources but the feeling the you are special and destined for special things. almost seemingly the opposite which is a dash of insecurity to offset that and the feeling you have not done enough for not good enough yet.

the third element is the impulse control with self discipline to persevere to resist temptation those qualities are at the crux how does somebody simultaneously feel insecure and superior? rethink that is what precisely generates drive and feels like i aged need to show the world and prove myself. >> host: what is the third impulse control? >> to allow you to do it to. [laughter] you could have all the driving and hunger but if you are not trained or don't have the ability to hang in there a and persist, even driven people tend to give up. >> host: who is a precise reading you would use the

word dash. >> we have not developed a bad yet but what we do think to pile on too much of any of those elements talking about the pathology "the triple package" can bring with it but we have not figured out how to precisely measure that. >> is is it an original hypothesis. it has to turn this explanatory power for those that happen to be doing well right now eliot for individuals but of course, we cannot tested in the laboratory. we don't know how and that is the point offering as the

new way to think about a success with the psychological underpinning and we havel whole chapter it you have too much of one or the other it does not work and bad things happen even when they all get together it has its own pathology. >> host: talk about what kind of success comes out of "the triple package." >> first of all, tried to raise possible misunderstandings we do not define success as material wealth. the definition of success means of achieving your goals whenever they are. with those conventional metrics like it become common educational achievement the first six chapters in the book is it is important but we do see

of the last few chapters that success is extremely narrow and we think "the triple package" elements could empower them to have any success not just the material fact and individuals who have these qualities tend to predictably second generation to have a district should relationship between their culture in the american culture with the vigor communities we don't want to do success that we were the only ones to be a stand-up comic that these same qualities can help them do that.

>> host: talk about the book that is most controversial is the identification of a particular group with the embodiment of "the triple package" talk about which groups have that manifests itself. >> guest: this is a snapshot. that these groups are better so it is the rise and fall. those that are successful change dramatically over time. there were different groups ted years ago and 10 years from now. to be very systematic to rely on the census data and had a lot of research assistance is very transparent.

to go down the ancestry tables. it does identify by religion and. that is not allowed any more. there is the english americans category. with latvia or south african they were under would hundred thousand. i thought we were pretty systematic those that were streaking the disproportionate according to the conventional metrics covet education, we chose those it was difficult to measure most of the focus is on artistic.

>> host: can i interrupt you? so stick to the group's the mormons and jews are not? >> they have alternative measures with independent researchers to put together income data that the states don't quite match up with they don't have that median household income for one thing but did fact double but we chose that group because i think maybe the most upwardly mobile group in america and the rates, the statistics, 30 years ago you could barely

find a mormon. we lay out all of their achievement right now the business school of law school and professional and that is a different category. so where is the jews are not in the great religious groups. american -- indians cabinet chinese-americans, we also looked at nigeria and cuban americans that are the extreme out liar for their population group and also higher rates of up word mobility. but as we say we could have looked bad japanese-americans to go further down the list of four space limitations we picked eight. >> host: pick your

favorite groups. >> we could talk about the mormons. >> host: the workmen's how do b.c. "the triple package" in action with mormons in particular? given it with the starting point many people since there are several groups prefer outperforming the national average with income and educational achievement we identify them independently as we could. asking ourselves would free five dash day cultural commonality? why look for coulter? maybe there could be something else? hopefully we will talk alternative explanations later but if you're looking at asian-americans or academic success if you do your homework with that

third generation are not outperforming the first and second generation over all they score higher on the s.a.t. than the rest of the country but third generation don't disspiriting it is biological or genetic. it disrupts whole stereotype by show ring and there is something cultural going on so that is the starting point with the thought that there is something going on. sure enough we did not expect to they have a chosen people decorative from the jewish experience they have moses, an exodus also from america is puritans an interesting combination of two histories.

said joseph smith thinks he has discovered a new religion they had been sent to earth to redeem the christian church and then they believe their way of life is morally superior. one of the words that they use in the beating discussion is they see themselves as a island door -- of morality. insecurity is fascinating to have the sense of rejection they know they have been looked on as a fringe group and vilified because of the practice of polygamy even when they renounce that for decades they have felt of the aside the fact they had to hear mitt romney sons and

described as creepy because they were so clean cut. so this is their words you can see this described. >> also the history of persecution in. >> actually hunted down and chased across the country. they tell the story of their insecurity apparel and looking down upon. they've will not say we feel a touch upon the shoulder or prove ourselves they seem to we motivated where they have this outside persecuted relationship and impose control. >> dave practice habits of impulse control the other very different.

they don't drink caffeine or soda they started to do this with their kids it is extremely relevant fatal suddenly start this adults with impulse control from preschool. , they give them big banks were they have too tired to 10%. they start on practices to go to you churchy and sit still by the time they are teenagers they don't suit bocor don't drink as much with less prepared all sex it is a matter of fact. those are very strongly present. >> host: what is the results in terms of it come? what is the outcome? >> as with all groups we can

demonstrate that with the morgan case where it is so striking i looked odd -- worked on wall street 30 years ago it was difficult to he did not find it in a corporate boardroom weeder now they are a powerhouse fisher-price, messier's, and many, many others. we have us three traits of its extraordinary satin record of success with a causal hypophysis there a motivation and drive spinet no other alternative account

that we are aware of kiam. >> host: people who criticize your book say this is an immigrant. with the chinese americans the immigrants are sell selected to be ambitious they will have that in them so talk about why it "the triple package" is not just in grain to. >> i don't see why that is a critique by most accounts of success with davis is drive. they were born wealthy of

course, they have a leg up. we totally agree that you are if the children of educated immigrants. but what is missing is motivation. of the most educated groups the most network to say in the '60s not only did they lacked the drive but it was gauche to be striving in that hunker. but there is some small selection hypophysis -- hypothesis. there is the idea of the immigrants that are succeeding are the ones that come over with education or the skill unfortunately that is just not true it is the politically correct

explanation. it is definitely a big deal but did this storage room with chinese-americans. these findings are replicated digested the united states or toronto over and over the steadies show -- the study show caribbean north vietnamese emigrants sometimes they are illiterate, restaurant workers are taxicab drivers raising academically faster the of the privileged white counterparts also hit did with the test scores a and that is the part that is hard to get traction of course, if you are the child of a software engineer of

course, you have the leg up but the other part is so fascinating. even with cuban-americans they say it is easy but it was actually only one-third of that first wave. but let's say the whole pile cable over. what is missing is the mechanism how does that first generation? i with a crowded place and i have no job. i have to work as a janitor. how does that drive for education, human capital get transmitted to the next generation? that is where we fit in with the book. we agree it helps to be an immigrant in most to come here of any background from el salvador but refugees disproportionately have "the

triple package" on the individual level but how would you convey those traits to the next generation? that is where the drive comes in. >> host: no reason to think there would not be people in poverty that were lazier not working very hard. but your book does not try to say india should be the most wealthiest because indian americans are doing well. >> no. >> 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. that is like why nations fail to claim that they are institutions of a functioning free market with political in exclusivity

that is what makes nation's prosperous. in combination with these cultural traits that allow these people to succeed. >> it is not just the institutions it is a great question because it clarify its. not talking about confucius or hindu yes they come over. the chinese have the very strong sense of exceptional the sum but once you come to this country it is mixed up burger you are the of cider with a funny accent the and it is a dynamic interplay. >> host: let's go back. it cannot know the success

of these are too big cases coming over with higher levels they're more bold in motivated look over half of chinese immigrants do not do as well with the stereotypes of those that are not. the chinese ones you don't many are very poorly educated for those immigrants are doing just as well it is not just the parental background but for our purposes doing better and better educated the of their peers. why are they doing better

from the national average been the better educated white kids? we are not saying look they do better than this other group that is persistently low word that is not the problem we try to solve. we ask how come they're doing better than those to start from a better place? the past to be something in the culture is every answer. >> host: talk about the positive success story. those that are not doing as well as chinese-americans what is a group that is not doing well? >> we look at the most disadvantaged groups and picked them carefully. this has nothing to do with the triple package.

>> there are many refugee groups. so i will just say ascidian. >> host: why are the income so low? ltd. is a snapshot i think some of these groups there will rise disproportionately i have worked with them and i see these qualities they are institutional problems all of these things have nothing to do with how hard they work but if you ask me

at the highest levels of there are working and working they will have a disproportionate success. it is a stem shot of time there are often people with historical reasons. >> one question i had thinking about the bell curve controversy vividly how tense that was for everyone concerned and everyone got upset because they were focusing were trying to put the elegized behavior. it is great you pick out things that are successful but without looking at the other side you cherry pick

the good stuff. what is the negative? if you had to right the opposite buck? the mcfadyen is the totally fair question. reid know the hypothesis was based on iq. we refutes that in the booktv clear. already mentioned the third generation asian americans really cuts that out to study chinese-americans they have done iq studies finding out it is not different. the book excludes the pernicious explanation. we try to show how they don't have "the triple package" would get the apple asia, role white, they don't have "the triple package" studies that compare

mexican-americans emigrate to reduce the losses angeles with the east asian communities and we look a little bit at that but our book is not why mexican-americans are not successful they assimilate into a culture and a group for over 200 years in this country denials of opportunity and exclusions why some groups who do not face it and assimilated in those structural problems there are many reasons why asian americans may be doing better than them. but they're doing better than the national average. if you do look at the studies they will tell you

what veto american kids -- latino american kids are not raised with the same expectations. those high expectations capturer two elements. parents telling the kids we go hugh cannot perform the rest of your classmates. you are capable. but if you don't you will disappoint us. you will fail our expectations embarrass our family. this careful cultural analysis has been done and it has been concluded those high expectations that difference does some of the work to produce success. this goes back 40 years.

to discover time after time that if what we we're doing to capture the immigrant experience of second-generation success that is exactly what we tried to do that is with no explanation can do. it cannot explain second or third generation in decline. that sociologists have found in this goes back to the italians or the polls. our explanation is the only one i know of that captures that perfectly. . .