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
>families would tend to be religious and others not. Some violent
>and others not. Is it a necessary corollary of the
>0-family-influence model that all such effects are really genetic
>or some other shared non-family-influence effects? Has it been
>determined which?
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 outside environment becomes a more
important influence in how children behave OUTSIDE the home. Since, in our
culture, we spend most of our (adult)lives outside the homes of our
upbringing, these outside infuences (mostly peers in Harris' model, but not
limited to peers) are the most important environmental factors influencing
our adult characteristics.
>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, I would guess, by the family into
>which one is born. But now you are saying that if we throw
>Atheists and Agnostics into the mix, the effect disappears.
>That is, whether one falls into the superset of religious sects
>(i.e., the many religious affiliations) or the superset of
>non-religious sects (i.e., Atheists, Agnostics, ...) is not
>determined by family. It just seems that something is fishy
>here. And if it is fishy for religion, then what does that say
>about the other constructs for which 0-family influence is
>claimed?
I do not know what fishy means here.
>
>And what does one do with beneficial effects of parent training
>studies? That is, training parents in effective parenting
>techniques has been demonstrated to have beneficial effects on
>child behaviour (e.g., less disruption in the home or the
>classroom). Must we assume that experimental manipulations of
>such factors have demonstrated effects, while naturally occurring
>variation in parenting practices have no discernible effects
>other than those better accounted for by genetic influences?
>That just does not seem very plausible at first blush.
>
I believe that Harris argues that when parent training works, it works at
changing how children interact with parents in the home but not necessarily
at school, which is consistent with her ideas. In oder to get change in
both the home and the classroom, I believe she suggests you need to change
the environment in both places (parent training and teacher training?).
Again, she is arguing (and presenting evidence) for contextual learning.
Jeff Nagelbush
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ferris State University
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
