On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Dr. Tasha Howe went:
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?
It sounds like you'll be very interested in Harris's most recent book, _No Two Alike_, in which she presents a testable model for such a process.
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.
I don't understand how that's outrageous. On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Joan Warmbold went:
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.
I'm not familiar with that work. What sorts of control groups were used?
And why are first born children far more often the super-achievers in families?
That seems like what logicians call a loaded question; it contains the assumption that first-born children are far more often the super-achievers in families. --David Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
