On 15 Mar 2008 at 10:42, Paul Brandon wrote: > I must admit that I'm with Joan. > I will admit to not having read the book (although I did read the > Reference section that Stephen posted). but I did read the original > article. I found it very sophomoric; a grab bag of mixed references (most of > them anecdotal newspaper items) with a fairly high cherry picking quotient > and little critical discrimination. At present, I'd call it at best an > interesting hypothesis.
Huh? I must admit that I have no clue what Paul is talking about, not having posted a "Reference section", whatever that is. Nor do I have the faintest idea what "original article" he's talking about. I did post a reference to her prize-winning 1995 _Psychological Review_ article but anyone who takes the trouble to examine it will quickly see that it bears not the slightest resemblance to to a "sophomoric..grab bag of mixed references (most of them anecdotal newspaper items)". On the contrary it's a sophisticated 31-page analysis of child development based on evidence from a wide variety of sources, especially studies in behaviour genetics and, as is all her work, extensively and meticulously referenced to the current scientific literature. I failed to spot even a single anecdotal newspaper item unless Paul includes in this category such well-known rags as Science, Child Development, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Psychological Review, etc. As with Joan's posts, Paul's description amounts to a serious misrepresentation of her work, made more reprehensible by the chutzpah of simultaneously claiming "I will admit to not having read the book". For the opinion of someone who _has_ read the book, you might turn to the book review by the respected social psychologist Carol Tavris in the _New York Times_ http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/13/reviews/980913.13tavrist.html) Tavris's opinion is a little different from Paul's and Joan's. In particular, she observes: "They cannot fault her scholarship. Harris is not generalizing from a single study that can be attacked on statistical grounds, or even from a single field; she draws on research from behavior genetics (the study of genetic contributions to personality), social psychology, child development, ethology, evolution and culture. Lively anecdotes about real children suffuse this book, but Harris never confuses anecdotes with data". As for Paul's claim that Harris has no more than an "interesting hypothesis", I have news. The thing that seems to cause her the greatest hostility is her claim that the home environment, or in the language of behaviour genetics, the shared family environment, counts for relatively little in the development of personality--that the role of parenting is minor. Messing with the belief in the cherished role of parents in child-rearing is apparently a dangerous move, certain to cause outrage. But anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with advances in behaviour genetics over the past 20 to 30 years know that this is no longer a hypothesis, but a now-uncontroversial fact. The extensive programme of behaviour genetic research, especially on twin and adoption studies, carried out by eminent researchers like Thomas Bouchard and Robert Plomin, leads to the firm conclusion that shared family influence has only a modest effect on major aspects of personality and on IQ in childhood, diminishing essentially to zero by the time the child becomes an adult. Genes matter. Non-shared environment (one's unique personal experiences) matters. But parents? Not so much. The importance of the parents in shaping the adult personality is one of the most pervasive myths of modern psychology and, as Harris demonstrates, one of the most unsupportable. Yet judging from comments on this list, it seems that the myth continues to be peddled to our undergraduates. For shame, I'd say. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
