On 8 Feb 2009 at 19:10, Joan Warmbold wrote:
> Judith Harris's carries this notion of
> children causing their parents to not parent well to the extreme. Catch
> this--she actually states something to the effect that 'if parents beat
> their children, is it not likely due to the fact that their children were
> more difficult and unlikeable than parents who do not beat their
> children?'
Just as nature abhors a vacuum, I abhor the misrepresentation of the
views of a scholar, however unintentional. What Joan attributes to Judith
Harris is curious. Despite the disclaimer ("something to the effect
that"), what Joan repeats appears in quotation marks, suggesting it is
close to what Harris actually said. It isn't, and from what I know of
Harris's insightful and meticulous work, it couldn't possibly be. And
the context is missing.
Joan doesn't provide a source for this alleged assertion of Harris, which
Joan may have heard second-hand, but I'm pretty sure it must be the
discussion around p. 27 of _The Nurture Assumption_. This is in a chapter
on interpreting scientific findings, an area where Harris excels. She
notes that many studies in child development find that children who are
treated well by their parents turn out well ("Generalization 2, p. 20).
She points out that socialization researchers (in fact, "nearly
everyone") believe that this demonstrates that good parenting causes
children to turn out well.
This is no surprise to us on TIPS, as, we've complained about this
fallacy on numerous occasions. She explains the point to her readers this
way (but keep in mind that this is part of a detailed discussion which
I've severely edited):
"The relationship between a parent and a child...is a two-way
street...When two people interact, what each one says or does is, in
part, a reaction to what the other has just said or done...Even young
babies make an active contribution to the parent-child relationship. By
the time they are two months old, most babies are looking their parents
in the eye and smiling at them..."
"Some babies [with autism]...don't do this. Autistic babies don't look
their parents in the eye, don't smile at them, don't seem glad to see
them. It is difficult to feel enthusiastic about a baby who isn't
enthusiastic about you. It is difficult to interact with a child who
won't look at you"
Then she says: "Generalization 2 said that children who are hugged are
more likely to be nice, children who are beaten are more likely to be
unpleasant. Turn that statement around and you get one that is equally
plausible: nice children are more likely to be hugged, unpleasant
children are more likely to be beaten. Do the hugs cause the children's
niceness, or is the children's niceness the reason why they are hugged,
or are both true? Do beatings make children unpleasant, or are parents
more likely to lose their tempers with unpleasant children, or are both
true? In the standard socialization study, there is no way to distinguish
these alternative explanations, no way to tell the causes from the
effects. Thus, Generalization 2 does not prove what it appears to prove."
Note that her discussion:
a) is hypothetical
b) is concerned with a methodological issue
c) takes no sides concerning which outcome is "likely"
d) is entirely reasonable and persuasive (ok, that's my opinion, but I'm
sticking with it).
Now review what Joan says Harris said and compare it with the real
version.
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])
