Before this interesting thread dies down, I have a few things to
reply to.
First, Robin Rosenberg said:
[Harris's] wholesale discounting of family environment is not
borne out by the data. For example, Bouchard's study of twins
found that social closeness (the desire for intimacy with others)
jim clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm probably not being very clear about my point. Here goes one
more try. Religiousness (i.e., L vs. H religiosity) shows no
family effect. But more specific religious affiliations,
including presumably such irreligious classifications as agnostic
and
Dear Colleagues:
Although Harris raises a legitimate point about the confounding of genetics
with the effect of parenting style on children, her wholesale discounting of
family environment is not borne out by the data. For example, Bouchard's
study of twins found that social closeness (the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Harris debate
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:37:07 EST
Hello again -
It was written:
"First, there really isn't a 0 influence model, as I understand Harris.
She
is arguing that environmental influences are
Hi
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Jeffrey Nagelbush wrote:
jim clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Certainly at the most molecular level, there are extremely
striking effects of family. For example, whether one is
Episcopelian or Jewish or Anglican or [name your favorite sect]
is pretty much determined,
From: jim clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TIPS Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Harris debate
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 09:49:55 -0600 (CST)
Hi
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Jeffrey Nagelbush wrote:
jim clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Certainly at the most molecular level, there are extremely
Hi
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Jeffrey Nagelbush wrote:
I do not whether or not adoption agencies include religion. However, I do
not think religiosity refers to any particular religion, but rather to a
general orientation to religion and religious beliefs. And it is these more
general beliefs
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am wondering why a more middle-of-the-road view on this
question is not being studied (or is it, and I am just
clueless?)
That is, it makes little sense to say, however convincingly,
that parents have virtually NO influence on how their
jim clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would the 0 influence claim have problems with other evidence
that _appears_ to suggest family effects? I would expect that
religiosity, social attitudes, and like constructs would, for
example, vary in consistent ways across families. That is, some
Dear Stephen and all,
Very interesting. Do Bouchard et al. also report
absolute values on those MMPI (and IQ) scales?
The reason I ask is because correlations are
(unit free) measures of association but not
of discrepancy. In fact, we know that linear
transformation do not affect them. Thus, if
Hello again -
It was written:
"First, there really isn't a 0 influence model, as I understand Harris. She
is arguing that environmental influences are very contexutal. Thus parents
DO have influence. They influence how children behave with their parents.
But when children leave home, the
The fact that peer groups of various ilk's exert a consistent, but not
necessarily uni-dimensional or even predictable in any direction on
adolescent development suggests that the seminal events in one's life may
be chaotic, in the sense that the physicists use the word.
If thesis the case,
12 matches
Mail list logo
