Allen-- Consider this a reply to both Joan and your post....
First -- my reaction to Harris is similar to Joan's, and I think that her points are valid. However.... It's much harder to refute an assertion than it is to make it, particularly in a case such as 'The Nurture Assumption' where the assertion is supported by a large assortment of varied references, rather than by a few crucial studies. A really convincing refutation would be a book twice as long as Harris', since each of her specific statements would have to be addressed in detail. On the other hand, it's easy to criticize the limited number of statements that Joan has made so far; clearly she has presented a precise for a refutation; not a refutation on the level of the original (I wish her luck on that). This may be why most of the postings are negative. In addition, those with an investment of some sort in the book are more likely to have read it carefully and to have a copy at hand. In my case, I read her original article, and a bibliography from the book that was posted to this list. Thus, I know that any statement that I make about the book will be answered in more detail than I am capable of. E.g., I think that Joan has a valid point about Harris' failure to address a considerable behavioral literature in the past 20 years showing the effects of parental actions on child behavior (and again, this is not my specialty, so it would involve a considerable response cost to support it in detail), but since I don't have a copy of the book available, I am not prepared to debate it with someone who has. On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:58 AM, Allen Esterson wrote: > 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] Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
