At 4:46 PM -0500 3/16/08, Paul Brandon wrote:
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.
And finally thanks to Ken Steele for reminding us that the core of
Harris' case is not nature/nurture but rather than relative
contributions of two different environmental determinants: family and
peers.
My one caution here is that this is a very contingent comparison (a
given culture at a given point in time); not a direct statement about
'human nature'.
Again, can one of you comment on whether Harris provides any cross
cultural data on her effects? Changes in relative contribution over
time (in generations) would also be interesting.
--
The best argument against intelligent design is that people believe in it.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department 507-389-6217 *
* 23 Armstrong Hall Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ *
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
