���Joan Warmbold writes: > I received around the same number of commendations as >I did criticisms of my critique of "The Nurture Assumption," >but the former ALL were sent directly to me whereas the latter >were ALL posted to the listserv. I found that kind of weird as it >seems to imply that folks feel a bit intimidated to "go public" with > their positive reactions to a critique of Harris?
Joan: I think you omitted one posting from this summary, the first one posted on TIPS. I neither criticized nor commended the first part of your critique (other than pointing out that you had omitted to give the context of a passage that you had quoted from The Nurture Assumption), merely asked you supply documentary evidence for a couple of your statements. (See below.) As mine was the first posted on TIPS, I trust a response will be forthcoming after you have completed your critique. Re the commendations, why should people feel too intimidated to post on TIPS if they have a good case to argue? Admittedly they may be subjected to a robust riposte (no names, no pack-drill!) but surely that's one of the occasional hazards of academic debate. I think this is important enough to make a separate discussion. If some people feel that the atmosphere on TIPS deters them from posting on certain issues, it should be aired – on TIPS. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org [tips] Critique of “The Nurture Assumption” Allen Esterson Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:38:12 -0800 Joan: In the first part of your critique of Harris's *Nurture Assumption* you write: "When discussing the works of Freud, Watson, Skinner, and Bandura, as well as less luminary researchers, she frequently misinterprets the thrust of their research and perspectives." (1) Would you care to give some examples of where Harris misinterprets the thrust of Freud's work. (2) You quote Harris as follows: ". . . Freudian theory . . . had an impact on academic psychologists, the kind who do research and publish the results in academic journals. A few tried to find experimental evidence for various aspects of Freudian theory; these efforts were largely unsuccessful. A greater number were content to drop Freudian buzzwords into their lectures and research papers." You respond to this with: "Again, no citation or source and I would suspect quite a surprise to the large numbers of scientific studies published in various psychoanalytic journals." First it should be made clear that Harris's comment cited above was in the context of "the first half of the twentieth century" (Harris 1998, p. 10). You write of large numbers of scientific studies published in psychoanalytic journals that are effectively rebuttals of Harris's contention. Leaving aside that my experience of glancing through past volumes of psychoanalytic journals on numerous occasions tells me that putting "scientific" in the same context as "psychoanalytic journals" is an oxymoron, I would be interested in hearing some examples of psychoanalytic studies *from the first half of the twentieth century" that you have in mind. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org ----------------------------------------------------------- Re: [tips] Critique of Harris's book: The Nurture Assumption/Study in Social psychology? Joan Warmbold Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:58:06 -0800 I received around the same number of commendations as I did criticisms of my critique of "The Nurture Assumption," but the former ALL were sent directly to me whereas the latter were ALL posted to the listserv. I found that kind of weird as it seems to imply that folks feel a bit intimidated to "go public" with their positive reactions to a critique of Harris? Regardless, it's of little import, as I quite appreciated each and every one of you who took time out of your busy schedule to provide helpful feedback relative to which aspects were cited as being valid and important as well as segments that were cited as requiring revision. I am moving forward with this critique as certain parties have expressed interest in bringing it to a wider audience. But, never fear, I won't be sending any further installments to the TIPS listserv. For those of you who would like to receive the completed critique (and have not already expressed an interest in such), I will be more than pleased to provide such. Joan [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
