Rainer Scheuchenpflug wrote:
> Please note: I do not want to imply that Jeffrey Nagelbush
> endorses any of these views and criticisms against Judith Rich
> Harris' book; if this post could be read that way, please
> attribute it to my being a non native speaker of English.
No, no, your point came through very clearly. That's a nice summary of what
I also believe Rich Harris would say about those findings.
Your memory about the identity of that developmental psychologist is also
correct - it was Kagan. I had a point-by-point response to Kagan's critique
posted both on TIPS (if I remember correctly) and on The Psychology Place
(at Dave Myers' request) when all of this happened last September. In
Kagan's defense, I suspect that busy people like him with solid reputations
are often pushed into commenting on pieces they haven't had a chance to
read. However, if you read Harris' book, Kagan's critique would appear
remarkably weak - Harris effectively anticipated all of his objections.
In a related vein, I see that our old "friend" Dr. Laura is at it again,
with another attack on psychology in today's newspaper column (if you don't
get her column in Germany, I give you my hearty congratulations...). At one
point she writes (about a recent journal article),
"The conclusion of this study suggests that fathers in two-parent
heterosexual families are not necessary to the psychological health of
children, that divorce does not irretrievably harm the majority of children,
and that any harmful effects of divorce are related to economics. Are you
clinical psychologists who do family therapy out there buying this
nonsense?".
Apparently if it violates her a priori beliefs, then it must be (her words)
"Junk science". Again, I am not impressed with her ethics.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
