> On 20 March 2008 Mike Palij wrote: > >Given the recent discussion of Harris' books and genetics, > >I was wondering if anyone was familiar with the work of Jay > >Joseph, the author of "The Gene Illusion". One review of the > > book is avaialable at:
>http://human-nature.com/nibbs/03/jjoseph.html Allen Esterson replied: > I see that my reaction to the review of > the *Gene Illusion* cited above was disappointment that it consisted of > little more than a resume of each chapter, rather than an informed > examination of Joseph's arguments <snip> I then said: There's a review in _Intelligence_ (Spinath, 2004). The gist of it seems to be that Joseph raises important points (particularly relating to the "equal environments assumption") but in an extreme and one-sided manner which does not give one confidence, while failing to give a fair hearing to the response of behaviour geneticists to his charges. I've now retrieved yet another review of it. It's by Daniel Hanson in PsycCRITIQUES, the on-line journal which has replaced the old _Contemporary Psychology_ as APA's book review journal. Hanson is scathing (and amusing). He likens Joseph to an "adrenalized boxer" who "charges out from his corner and relentlessly punches away at his opponents". He comments "This is not a balanced and current appraisal of the state of behavior genetic findings and theories...Is the author throwing some below-the-belt punches by focusing only on the faults? What domain of science would stand up to the application of current day standards applied to efforts from decades past?" He notes Joseph's rejection of the role of genetics in mental illness and intelligence and his failure to provide an alternative hypothesis, with "no empirical data to support his alternate explanations". Hanson ends the review by saying "After a maelstrom of attacks on his opponents, the boxer devotes only two pages to a "a new approach". Unfortunately, the author mostly recapitulates his previous criticisms and provides neither new insights nor new research strategies...Does _the Gene Illusion_ give me direction for better science in the future? No it does not." Incidentally, in contrast to the the three reviews we've managed to locate on Joseph's book, one neutral, two negative, I thought it of interest to look for similar stats for Judith Harris's two books, the starting point for this thread. For _Nurture Assumption_, I count approaching 200 review entries provided on her website (http://home.att.net/~xchar/tna/) and another 40 or so for the newer _No Two Alike_. Most seem positive, quite a few strongly so. But not all. One of the quotes on her webpage comes from a sermon from Miles Hodges, the Interim Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Dunellen, NJ. If I understand the pastor's comment, he seems to be saying that her book is the work of the Devil ("susceptible to the work of the Deceiver--as I see this book written by Mrs. Harris"). Not to worry, though: Margaret Alter, writing in a Christian book review publication, instead argues that Jesus challenged the dogma that parents could raise perfect children. She observed "Perhaps there is something of the Spirit in Judith Rich Harris's persuasive argument". Amen. Stephen Hanson, D. (2005). The Gene Illusion confusion. A review of _The Gene Illusion_. PsycCRITIQUES, 50, no. 52, article 14. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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])
WPM$1A9E.PM$
Description: Mail message body
