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)
and positive emotionality (an active engagement to one's
environment) were influenced by the family environment (Tellegen
et al., 1988). Social closeness has an obvious lasting impact on
choice of friends and partners. Harris does not mention this
work in her book.
I checked this out. Of 14 different components of the personality
questionnaire, these were the only two to show an effect
significantly different from no effect for family environment,
Thus, thay may be merely chance events turned up by multiple
comparisons. Even if real, each represents only 20% of the
variance, while the unshared for each is 40%. So even these items
don't indicate a major family influence. On the other hand, all
14 comparisons were significant for non-shared environment, with
values ranging from 36 to 56% (average = 45%).
Also, I had said:
> The finding that there is virtually no influence
> of family environment on personality and social attitudes is
> often extented to IQ, but I think this is incorrect. The data do
> show that family environment contributes to IQ.
And Nancy Melucci replied
>
> This is pretty much supporting my point. I never specified
> which parts would be influenced and which would not, I just
> speculated that parents have some influence, and so do peers.
> I think Harris and Anti-Harris forces are oversimplifying a
> complex issue for self-serving, political and other reasons.
>
> What would I say to students? (Someone else raised this
> issue.) I would say the same thing I have said regarding
> nature versus nurture in IQ. It is clear that genetics play
> a role (twin studies). It is also clear that environment
> plays a role (from conception...There is probably no formula
> for nature vs nurture, in every individual the two forces
> contribute differently. All we can really predict is that
> each will contribute, but to what extent they each do...well,
> given our current level of knowledge, it's virtually a
> "crapshoot."
Actually, given the results of twin and adoption studies, we can
now say much more. We're no longer restricted to the bland and
uninformative truism that heredity and environment both count for
everything. Using the insight that there are two different kinds
of environment to consider, we can give quantitative estimates of
the extent to which each is important for the development of a
particular characteristic or ability. I think this work is among
the most important and exciting ever produced in the field of
child development. As it continues, we can expect further
insights into how our own experiences, our family, and our genes
differently affect different aspects of our development. And
we've at last laid to rest the malicious but widely-accepted
belief, as pithily expressed by the celebrated poet Philip
Larkin, that:
Your mum and dad they fuck you up
They may not mean to but they do
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra just for you
Too much of clinical and pop psychology has been permeated with
this unsubstantiated and pernicious view. I, for one, am not
sorry to see it go.
-Stephen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC
J1M 1Z7
Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
Check out TIPS listserv for teachers of psychology at:
http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
