Gee, do I really want to get into this at all anymore?! But both Pinker and Harris boldly state that parents are not important. Quote from the foreword by Pinker states, "The thesis of The Nurture Assumption . . .(is) that genes and peers matter, but parent's don't matter. In the preface by Harris, she quotes from her journal article, "Do parents have any important long-term effects on the development of their children's personality? This article examines the evidence and concludes that the answer is no."
I will again apologize for my very inaccurate statement that no citations were provided. However, 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. Stephen, please don't respond yet. Wait until I have the proper time and energy to provide what I believe to be reasons that this text has weaknesses that the scientific community at-large should be made aware. After I present such, go at me with any and all criticisms. This is what this listserv is all about--learning what does and does not make up good science. Joan [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > There seem to be two issues that are being conflated: (1) The > issue of whether Harris is presenting a scientific hypothesis (as > opposed to bunch of poorly-documented anecdotes) and (2) whether > Harris' argument is valid. > > I suggest that the first question can be answered by examining > the 1995 Psychological Review article (v. 102, pp. 458-489) > instead of arguing over endnote/footnote/reference formats. The > argument in the 1995 article is presented in a format familiar to > psychologists. > > It also seems to me that many people misunderstand her basic > thesis, which is *NOT* that parents are unimportant but that they > lack a certain influence that has been automatically assumed. > Her argument is that a lot of environmental influence has been > uncritically assigned to the parents when it should have been > assigned to the peer group. I don't know whether she is correct > or not but this hypothesis seems plausible and empirical. > > Here is a summary of the thesis from the 1995 article. > > "The theory presented in the remainder of this article, Group > Socialization (GS) theory, explains the shaping of adult > personality characteristics in terms of the child's experiences > outside the parental home. It is important to note that this > theory does not imply that children can get along without > parents. Children are emotionally attached to their parents (and > vice versa), are dependent on them for protection and care, and > learn skills within the home that may prove useful outside of it; > these facts are not questioned. What GS theory implies is that > children would develop into the same sort of adults if we left > them in their homes, their schools, their neighborhoods, and > their cultural or subcultural groups, but switched all the > parents around." (1995, p. 461) > > What a gedankenexperiment! > > Ken > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu > Appalachian State University > Boone, NC 28608 > USA > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
