At 12:00 PM 6/25/2008, Dan M wrote: >I read that, and found holes large enough to drive a tank through. It's >true that, once kids have a peer group, that group becomes much more >influential on their behavior outside the home than the parents.
Well, you got the main point of the book anyway. >But, she doesn't even address the obvious question: how does a kid end up in >a particular peer group? If it is, and does not involve things about the >kids that exist outside of and before the joining of a particular peer >group, than moving should totally shuffle the deck. It does. One example she used was a kid whose parents moved from Poland to Missouri. Did he wind up speaking Polish? >But, we know it doesn't. It is true that, if you haven't done effective >parenting before the kid is old enough to get into real big trouble than the >deck is staked against you. But, parents have tremendous influence in the >"bag of tools" they give their kids to handle life's problems. I remember a >significant problem with self esteem that caused Beth to pick the wrong peer >group and allow them to pressure her into doing some rather stupid things >(like stop up our toilet with a pine cone) when she was young. To what extent was this group the result of the neighborhood in which you lived? That is (to an economically limited extent) under parents control and Judith discusses that influence in depth. >But, we worked hard and gently on that problem, and she is now a very self >assured adult, who seemed to have been known by everyone at college and is >genuinely liked. It took years to convince her that she didn't need other >peoples approval to be OK, and that other people actually would respect her >for that view. Once she got it, she dumped the kids who were mistreating >her although they were her "friends" and hung out with a much better group >of kids. Now, she has tremendous people skills. Judith Harris talks about kids switching groups without any parental input. It's not like parents are without influence, my ghod, in most cases they contribute all the genes the kids have. But her point was that by the time you factored out the genetics, there just wasn't room for parents to make a claim either for the successes of their offspring *or* their failures. Much of this came out of the twin studies which are by now undisputed. >There is an innate EQ, I don't deny that. However, there are still things >that can be taught. My wife has taught me to read body language. I can >walk into a room and read it fairly easily. But, I worked hard to acquire >that skill set. Parents can give similar skill sets to their kids by >talking about this when the time is right (if you have the skill set, you >usually know when the right time is). We still screw up (at least I do), >but we can help a lot. > >So, in conclusion, the Nurture Assumption made a tacit assumption...and it >was false. The prevailing assumption for many decades is that parents have huge influence over how their kids turn out. (This assumption isn't the case either in our deeper history *or* in other cultures.) The data just don't support this view in spite of the invaluable skills parent *can* teach kids. If the kids are adopted out, chances are they will find some other way to pick up the skills biological parents provide if they are so inclined. Keith >Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
