At 11:05 PM -0500 3/15/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >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 swore years ago that I would avoid the Evo Psycho wars, but I succumbed. Mea Culpa. I seem to have hit a nerve. I'm sometime amused by the way people in mainstream movements act as if they're a persecuted minority. I thought that I remembered someone posting a list of references from one of Harris's publications, but after a dozen or so years memory gets vague. Somehow I assumed that Stephen would have been the most likely culprit -- my apologies. I did not claim that Harris did not provide documentation (that was Joan's assertion). My skepticism is based on the nature of that documentation, voluminous though it be. It certainly does include many undeniably scholarly publications. I'm not going to get into a point by point debate concerning the applicability of each publication to her thesis -- others such as Stephen have much more invested in the topic than I do. References to authority notwithstanding, the core assumptions of Evo Psycho are not universally accepted. I'd suggest a reading of: Moore, David S. (2003) The dependent gene : the fallacy of nature/nurture for a discussion of the difficulties of assigning relative contributions to the genome and the environment. I read the 1995 Psych Rev paper when it came out. Based on descriptions the book seem to be more of the same (more depth, but no new major points) so I did not read it. On my reference to memes and the zeitgeist: While it is certainly true that most parents in Western culture set a high value on parenting (though one might also argue that, based on the time that parents actually spend with their children this is mostly lip service), most of those parents also are unhappily aware that the results do not usually fulfill their expectations. Writings such as Evolutionary Psychology provide a comforting explanation that removes blame by self or others for the consequences of one's behavior. Parenting is not the only area where this can be found. We also find it in fields such as drug dependence. NOTHING in science is ever irrevocably proven. While the findings of behavioral genetics may have become mainstream, there will be room for skepticism until someone can do a human twin study with random assignment. I will remain agnostic (a mild statement for me) on the relative contributions of different determinants on behavior. A lot may be culture specific. >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]) -- The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that people believe in it. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ * --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
