I would kindly suggest to all interested in this topic to please read
Harris' "No Two Alike." Her thinking has changed quite a bit since
the Nurture Assumption was published and to argue pro/con the merits
of the Nurture Assumption ignores how her thinking has evolved
(again, based on the scientific evidence). As a quick primer, she now
believes that what makes children (including identical twins) so
dissimilar is what she refers to as the Status System. The
Relationship system and the Socialization System are also important
for general personality development, but what she is really most
interested in is how identical twins can become so dissimilar. She
thinks she has the answer in the Status System. She views her
"systems" as modular components of the mind, selected via evolution,
for their adaptive functions.
Her newest book is a fascinating read. We just finished discussing it
in my 400 level social and personality development class.
Interesting, half of the students are now convinced that everything
their Human Development and Family Studies profs are teaching is so
much drivel, while the other half just don't buy it, based on nothing
more than gut feelings. :) I must admit, as a teaching tool, her
book provokes fantastic discussion in the classroom. I only wish that
there were a companion piece that challenged her perspective, much
like Vandell (2000) wrote a critique in Developmental Psychology. I
always want to present (as well as I am able) a balanced view on
controversial topics.
-- Mark
At 09:33 PM 3/16/2008, you wrote:
Gee, do I really want to get into this at all anymore?! But both Pinker
and Harris boldly state that parents are not important. Quote from the
foreword by Pinker states, "The thesis of The Nurture Assumption . . .(is)
that genes and peers matter, but parent's don't matter. In the preface by
Harris, she quotes from her journal article, "Do parents have any
important long-term effects on the development of their children's
personality? This article examines the evidence and concludes that the
answer is no."
I will again apologize for my very inaccurate statement that no citations
were provided. However, I have been spending much time today reviewing
this text and will provide a number of examples of statements in this book
later this week that are quite unfounded and provide no citation.
Stephen, please don't respond yet. Wait until I have the proper time and
energy to provide what I believe to be reasons that this text has
weaknesses that the scientific community at-large should be made aware.
After I present such, go at me with any and all criticisms. This is what
this listserv is all about--learning what does and does not make up good
science.
Joan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> There seem to be two issues that are being conflated: (1) The
> issue of whether Harris is presenting a scientific hypothesis (as
> opposed to bunch of poorly-documented anecdotes) and (2) whether
> Harris' argument is valid.
>
> I suggest that the first question can be answered by examining
> the 1995 Psychological Review article (v. 102, pp. 458-489)
> instead of arguing over endnote/footnote/reference formats. The
> argument in the 1995 article is presented in a format familiar to
> psychologists.
>
> It also seems to me that many people misunderstand her basic
> thesis, which is *NOT* that parents are unimportant but that they
> lack a certain influence that has been automatically assumed.
> Her argument is that a lot of environmental influence has been
> uncritically assigned to the parents when it should have been
> assigned to the peer group. I don't know whether she is correct
> or not but this hypothesis seems plausible and empirical.
>
> Here is a summary of the thesis from the 1995 article.
>
> "The theory presented in the remainder of this article, Group
> Socialization (GS) theory, explains the shaping of adult
> personality characteristics in terms of the child's experiences
> outside the parental home. It is important to note that this
> theory does not imply that children can get along without
> parents. Children are emotionally attached to their parents (and
> vice versa), are dependent on them for protection and care, and
> learn skills within the home that may prove useful outside of it;
> these facts are not questioned. What GS theory implies is that
> children would develop into the same sort of adults if we left
> them in their homes, their schools, their neighborhoods, and
> their cultural or subcultural groups, but switched all the
> parents around." (1995, p. 461)
>
> What a gedankenexperiment!
>
> Ken
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu
> Appalachian State University
> Boone, NC 28608
> USA
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ---
> To make changes to your subscription contact:
>
> Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
>
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
*********************************
Mark A. Casteel, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Penn State York
1031 Edgecomb Ave.
York, PA 17403
(717) 771-4028
*********************************
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
