Stephen, I do wish you would talk to me in your posts as opposed to talking 'about me,' in a fairly dismissive tone I might add. I think we all wish to maintain a high level of civility on TIPS, even between/among folks who have quite different opinions on an important topic.
Relative to my original post offering to provide a critique of Harris, I'm fairly certain I offered to send a copy of my criticisms to those who requested such as opposed to the entire listserv. I didn't receive any requests after that post but have received three following my most recent post. As I told each of them, I will send my critique to them early next week. BTW Stephen, all three expressed a similar concern about the level of scholarship displayed in Harris's book, The Nurture Assumption. They have chosen to not jump into the fray, which I totally understand, but I'm clearly not alone on this one. I also will send a very brief summary of my concerns to this listserv. Relative to research that has revealed the importance of the early years, I do have a special interest in infant mental health so have been exposed to multitude of research studies on the impact of unpredictability and abuse on brain development, how quality of attachment influences a child's social skills and curiosity, how style of parenting (authoritarian vs authoritative vs permissive) influences a child's self-esteem, maturity, and industriousness, etc. I hadn't considered that my interests and area of study have exposed me to research studies that are not part of the general knowledge base of all psychologists. So yes, I will be more than happy to provide a list of citations on this topic. Relative to this research, a relatively recent and prominent concern is how strongly a child's inborn temperament and aptitudes influence how parents interact with their child. While acknowledging that there exists quite a persuasive perspective that a child's display of interest or lack there of could influence how parents choose to intellectually stimulate their child, I am far less impressed with the contention that a child's inborn temperament has a significant impact on styles of parenting that influence children's social-emotional development. Joan [email protected] > 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]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
