I am so pleased to hear folks contesting Harris's conclusions. Every where I look I see the impact of parents on the emotional development of their children. So then Tiger Woods dad really didn't make a signficant impact on his son's golf skills? Pleeese. Benjamin Bloom's reseach on the early environment of super-achievers in various fields shows that they are amazingly consistent: 1) early exposure to an area, whether it be math, figure skating, golf or music; 2) lots of encouragement with little if any criticism; 3) parents bringing in a coach at the appropriate time to take the child to the next level.
And why are first born children far more often the super-achievers in families? Duh, because they received the most attention for their achievements as well as parents usually having higher expectations. Well, vent is over and must teach now. Harris's perspective literally scares me relative to the impact it could have on parents' view of the relevance of their parenting. Joan Joan Warmbold [EMAIL PROTECTED] > At 08:39 AM 12/4/2006, you wrote: >>I have to weigh in on the controversy surrounding Judith Rich >>Harris's arguments. Yes, she provides evidence but it's based on >>behavior genetics studies (with their inherent flaws and lack of >>generalizability, plus the fact that they suggest at least half of >>the influence is environmental), or personality questionnaires >>(self-report). She does argue that parents have no lasting impact on >>children's personality or adjustment when they grow up. She actually >>suggests that if your child is ugly or unpopular, about the only >>thing parents can do to correct this is provide plastic surgery. She >>mentions parental influence on the peer group in terms of choosing >>good neighborhoods, but discounts the developmental processes of >>modeling, imitation, and cognitive mediation, which have so >>definitively been shown to impact development in research using >>diverse methodologies in many labs over many decades. > >>For example, Parke and Ladd (1992) wrote a tome about how complex >>the impacts of parents on their children's peer relationships >>actually are. For developmentalists, we are interested in PROCESS. >>Why would peers affect children's long term outcomes but parents >>not? What process would account for this that is not generalizable >>to the parenting context? She also makes the outrageous claim that >>child abuse is bad because it makes the current home situation >>unpleasant but that it does not having lasting long term impacts. >>The message to parents is clear: live in a good neighborhood and >>help your child pick the right peer group because you yourself have >>no lasting influence. > >>Harris did developmetal science a favor by making us do better, >>genetically informed, and experimental research, but her main >>arguments simply have not been supported. We cannot disentangle >>genes from environments (nor would I argue this avenue is even >>useful or itneresting), and even if something "is genetic" (which >>most traits/behaviors are not, according to behavior and molecular >>genetic studies), the environment in the form of parenting >>interventions, etc., changes children's behavior! > > ========================== > Tasha R. Howe, Ph.D > Associate Professor of Psychology > > --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
