On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Paul C. Smith wrote:
> Michael Sylvester wrote:
> > Now that Hillary Clinton has revealed the abuse factor in
> > Bill's childhood
> > as a determinative factor in his mfc ( marriage fidelity challenged),
> > I was curious if Judith Harris may want to take a swcond look at the
> > potent role of family influences on behavior. She apparently make
> > allowances for the such potent influences of abuse,but it seems as if
> > Bill's peers may not have been much of an influence as it pertains
> > to conduct behavior.
>
> Based on what? I don't see that there's anything here that challenges
> Rich-Harris' claims. Can you be more specific?
>
There may not be a challenge but it should be noted that the abuse
excuse seem to be a major explanation in some noteworthy cases in our
society.Family influences,it would appear,carry a potent source
in guiding and directing behavior than other influences.
Could it be that early parental influences are more resistant to
extinction because of the unavailability of other reinforcers?
how many people really had a choice of belonging to certain religions?
Sarcastically,but seriously,does not the family that pray together
stay together?
Hillary's explanation of Bill's behavior would seem to indicate that some
behaviors have a greater habit strength and perseveration than others
and that the critical factor may be parental influences.
I take the position that family influences may still be hidden in what may
appear to be a significant peer influence .
Michael Sylvester
Daytona Beach,Florida
