Ask me if I would introduce this article as well as my reflections on it again! You guys are have all made many thoughtful and valid reflections, really. But I just never intended to create such a tempest. As Ralph Kramden used to say, "Me and my big mouth!"
Joan [email protected] > On 4 November 2009 Joan Warmbold wrote: >>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, would you mind clarifying the last part of this sentence? Are you > saying that you don't think a child's inborn temperament (e.g., placid, > excitable, and so on) has a significant influence on the way that a > parent treats him or her? > > Stephen Black wrote >> 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. > > To be fair to Joan, to the extent that this true, in this respect she > is hardly alone among TIPSters. It may vary in degree or frequency, but > can any of us swear, hand on heart, that we haven't also been guilty of > doing this on occasion? > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > Southwark College, London > http://www.esterson.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joan Warmbold <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Article in WSJ on study how brain develops "without Dad." > Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:26:58 -0600 (CST) > 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]) > > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
