Joan Warmbold said (Nov 2/09: "Article in WJS"): "And please, please read the book by Judith Harris as it is sadly an example of profoundly poor scholarship as well as a blatant ignorance of the role of certain major players in the history of psychology. As I have offered previously, I have made a critical analysis of her book that I would be glad to share with whomever. "
We've been here before (see Joan's post of March 16/08). Her only specific criticism then was that Harris failed to provide any references. This is in fact untrue, as Harris in both her books (No Two Alike and The Nurture Assumption, now in a revised 10th anniversary edition) meticulously mega-documented her work with references. Joan's error, for which she apologized, suggests something less than a careful reading of Harris, which does not bode well for Joan's claims against Harris. As for Joan's previous "offer", this is what she said back on March 16, 2008, more than a year and a half ago: "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." I waited patiently but none appeared. I'm still waiting. She now tells us that that she has prepared an entire critical analysis, but rather than presenting it on TIPS, we must request it. Speaking for myself, I would rather not, as I don't have the patience for perusal off-list of a document which strikes me as unpromising. But there is something simpler which Joan could do for us to support her as-yet unsupported strong opinion. She could identify one published research study which in her opinion irrefutably shows that parental upbringing does impact adult personality. Harris has carefully examined many such studies purporting to show parental effects, and finds not one to be convincing. Notwithstanding, if Joan knows of such a study, she should tell us. I anticipate, though, that it will turn out to have one or more flaws. These include such matters as drawing causal conclusions from correlational data, ignoring plausible alternative hypotheses, massaging the data through cherry- picking results or through misusing multiple comparisons, or the study failing to replicate. Harris has noted many such flaws. Harris has also pointed out that in some cases data which was claimed to produce highly convincing results turned out on closer examination not to exist. So I'm not expecting a knock- out study from Joan. Joan, I should mention, seems to have an unfortunate tendency to let her prior beliefs determine what conclusions she draws from a particular study. That is, she picks the hypothesis she likes (parenting has lasting effects) and ignores alternative competing explanations of the data. A good scientist will not ignore competing explanations but will meet them head on, discussing whether and to what extent they may be discounted on the basis of evidence. Unfortunately, those most emphatic in advancing the importance of parenting tend to forget that parents not only provide their children with particular environments but also with particular genes. We should not assert that parenting is responsible if we cannot rule out the possibility that genes are responsible instead. Note also the contradiction in the paragraph of Joan's I quoted at the beginning of this post. On the one hand she administers harsh criticism of Harris ( "profoundly poor scholarship"), and on the other urges us to read her book. If we were to accept Joan's evidence-free opinion, why would we want to waste our time reading Harris? Fortunately, other more informed opinions are less critical of Harris's scholarship, and I think it only fair to cite a few of them in response. From the blurbs on her book, I select the following from respected scholars and experts: "Shockingly persuasive...Harris has an impressive breadth of knowledge"--Simon Baron-Cohen, _Nature_ "The Nurture Assumption is a rare book: clear, well informed, occasionally hilarious, and rich with compelling examples"-- David G. Myers "The book is based on solid science, analyzed with a piercing style that's not afraid to take on the leading orthodoxy, and communicated in a clear, accessible, terrifically witty way"-- Robert M. Sapolsky, professor of neuroscience and biology, Stanford University. I agree with Joan that Harris's book should be read. But not for the reason given by Joan. For the reasons given by Baron- Cohen, Myers, and Sapolsky. 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
