The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do: Parents Matter Less Than You Think and Peers Matter More

Rating:
Summary: Another very well written book on how children mature
Review: This book is outstanding for two reasons. First, the author wrote university textbooks about how parents influence their children and from her own observations and subsequent research realized that the data was flawed. The radical environmentalist dogma was using very slim data to make statements about human behavior that just was not true. Second, it is complete and very easy to read. A book that should be read by every parent, either to help raise children or parents who have failed and felt it was all their fault.

The book puts forth concepts that are well established now in behavior genetics, evolutionary psychology, etc. It takes a new look at the interaction between parents and children, and between children's peer groups. It is now recognized now that children, from a very early age, are all about exploring the world and finding their own niche, and they do this in several contexts. For example, they may show one set of moral rules while around the family, and a completely separate set of moral rules while amongst their friends, and they can switch between the two contexts easily.

The book is a fascinating adventure into a world that is known by researchers but has not yet filtered down to the press or society. There are too many social scientists and social workers who have too much at stake at blaming every fault or good a child has on the parents. This book tackles not only the nurture assumption, but also rounds out the behavior of children with an explanation of the genetic components as well. This is a must read for anyone stuck in the 60's dogma, especially Dr. Laura (sp?). This author thoroughly repudiates most of Dr. Laura's assumptions. And they are all based on the latest research, not just wishful thinking about how children should behave.

Rating:
Summary: Every parent should read this book
Review: For the last century, child development experts have searched for the causes of human's personalities in two places: genetics and the family environment. Nature or nurture. Former psychology textbook author Judith Rich Harris offers a fresh perspective on this problem.

Through detailed analysis of data on language acquisition, twin studies, and anthropological research, Harris determines that the family environment, and in particular, parental styles, have little influence on the personality of their children. While fifty percent of the personality differences can be attributed to genetics, Harris argues the other fifty percent of personality differences arise from a child's peer groups. Furthermore, parental style has practically no influence on a child's personality.

In a clear and thorough manner, Harris buttresses her argument through examples from the language acquisition of immigrant children, the social life of rhesus monkeys, anthropological research of primitive child raising techniques, twin studies, and her own personal life.

Harris's argument is so persuasive and clear, the reader will miss the fundamental shift in thinking it represents. Since the time of Freud, child development theorists have argued that the way that parents treat their children-especially at a very young age-have tremendous influence on adult human behavior. This dominant view of parental influence is so prevalent in modern society that parents walk on eggshells, paralyzed with the fear of doing the wrong thing and [messing] up their children.

Harris's book calls for a more humble view of parenting. Based upon her arguments, parents should no longer worry about [messing] up their children. No longer sculptor to their child's Pygmalion, parents should focus on improving their own relationship with their children and, when possible, providing their children with a stable group of friends that share their values.

Harris has written a rare and important book, one that will influence a generation of child development scientists in the same way that Richard Dawkin's THE SELFISH GENE influenced a generation of evolutionary biologists. And like Dawkin's seminal work, Harris has written her book in prose both entertaining and accessible to people unfamiliar with the details of her chosen specialty.

This book should be on every parent's bookshelf.

Rating:
Summary: The Most Important Book a Parent Can Read
Review: Judith Rich Harris has written a book that not only turns our culture's assumptions about child-rearing upside down, but also does so in a read that is funny, witty, and very enjoyable. The book provides a great deal of evidence that what we are told by the "experts" on child-rearing is often unsupported conjecture, and often fashioned from whole cloth. Yet we as parents continue to follow along, terrified of the possibility of being labeled by our peers as bad parents. The nail that sticks up is hammered down.

The book does not pretend to be a child-rearing manual, and in fact offers little advice for raising children. Its purpose is to make us question the assumptions by which we raise our children. The confrontational, irreverant, and occasionally flippant tone of the book is necessary to help the reader step outside the box and look objectively at what we as parents have considered our sacred duties.

The reviews critical of the book from homeschoolers are laughable. ... For the record, I think Ms. Harris is wrong about homeschool, but that's no reason to ignore 400 pages of paradigm-shifting thought.

As a father of two, I feel this is the most important book I have ever read. And the funny thing is, I have developed a much better relationship with my children since I took the book's principles to heart. Once I set myself free from the responsibility to "mold" my children into good adults, I began to enjoy my children, and they me, so much more.

Rating:
Summary: Children Socialize Children: In Memory of Slain Students
Review: I came upon this book by accident in search of something else. It is sooooo intriguing I've been reading it and pondering all day! The author has written several text books on child development, but through personal experience (two completely different daughters, academically, socially, etc.) and a careful review of scientific literature comes to other conclusions which she is able to support with anthropology, biology, genetics (nature) and double-blind psychological studies. The results dispel popular notions of "nurture" theories so ingrained by Freudian and behavioralist influences in our education establishment and social culture. To authenticate her assertions, recorded histories of identical and fraternal twins raised by adopted or foster families and other scientific and biologic data are offered. Judith Harris makes a convincing case that parents have less influence on how children turn out than do their peers. In the process, she relieves parental guilt if not suffering.

On the second anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, it's worth examining a shift in thinking. Obviously the mainstream media are consistent about maintaining the status quo of pop psych nurturing or we would be aware of this 21st century paradigm. Harris does not discount the value of being a loving, caring, supportive parent. But, she effectively illustrates how decent parents can have decent children or not as well as the reverse. Genetic conditions for behavior apparently are not as politically correct among psycho/social "advice givers" as the egalitarian NURTURE ASSUMPTION. She contends children are more likely to bring peer influences home than share home influences with peers; preferences (genetic similarities?) determine peers; peer acceptance or rejection is far more powerful than parental guidance or lack of it. Parents, educators, social workers, law enforcement officers, counselors and coaches need to open the blinds to this view of human behavioral development.

Among the questions Harris asks of researchers are: (p.353) - How can we keep a classroom of children from splitting up into two dichontomous groups, pro-school and anti-school? - How do some teachers, schools...prevent this spilt and keep kids united and motivated? - How can we step in and break the vicious cycle of aggressive kids becoming more aggressive because in childhood they are rejected by their peers and in adolescence they get together with others like themselves?

This book was published in 1998, the year before Columbine.

Rating:
Summary: Inspiration to everyone with a B.A. in psychology
Review: A semi-scholastic and politically charged attack on minority groups. The "The Nurture-Assumption" is neither about the biological nor the evolutionary traits of child-rearing or human behavior. It is simply about racial differences in child-rearing practices. It is about Judith Rich Harris' White neighborhood European-America and the hazardous and primitive child-rearing practices by Blacks and Hispanics. There is nothing subliminal about her message: Right-parenting, breast-feeding, aggression, neighborhoods, crimes, dysfunctional families, parenting-styles as well as others variables are fundamentally different between "European Americans" and "Hispanics and Blacks". The outcome: 1) European Americans practice the correct methods as opposed to these minority groups, 2) Children are influenced by their peers more than their parents. Well, there is one alternative. Since the author makes it clear that we cannot integrate these "type" of children in private good-standing schools, perhaps we should consider segregation.
Maybe the reason that Judith was dismissed from Harvard was her failure in research methodology. Her extraction of literature from social psychology papers that were published in the 1950s, and confirmatory searches makes this book simply pathetic and her argument banal and unoriginal. Nothing novel! Similar ideas were expressed by the eugenics more than a century ago. The 350 plus pages of cited experiments is one-directional and confirmatory. I support her rights as an author or layperson to publish, lecture, and express her views. However, this is not a book about the nurture-assumption. It should remain as an inspiration to all her colleagues who hold a B.A. in psychology and consider themselves experts on human behavior.

Rating:
Summary: Minors molding minors' minds
Review: How many metres of shelf space are taken up by books about raising children? Rich Harris sweeps away those reams of paper and tankards of ink with a grandiloquent gesture. What determines a child's behaviour? The acrimonious debates of many years over the role of genetics versus parental guidance are shown redundant by this excellent work. In short, once a child encounters peers, on the street, in school, even a working environment, it is those peers and their attitudes that nudge behaviour in various directions. Well written and firmly researched, Harris has offered a real breakthrough in understanding child development.

Harris starts out with a simple truth we all know and rarely "see". All children are different. They differ from parents and each other. Even identical twins, those mythical examples of matching traits, turn out to exhibit variations in taste, dress and habits. Clearly, she notes, there is more to child development than genes. On the other hand, why, she asks, are parents under such stress to "make children behave" [or submit, or learn the piano, or . . .]. Harris demonstrates that an outside force, one poorly perceived and often unrecognized, leads children along unexpected paths.

Her first clue was language. She notes immigrants to North America who adhere to their original language and culture norms produce children who adhere to values here from an early age. That was the pointer leading her to create the idea of "group socialization". A child's playmates and school chums can communicate at levels parents don't understand. Playground or street values aren't home values. As children progress through school or a work environment, peer forces can guide them in new directions. Parents may have some impact, but they lose much of their influence very early.

Harris recognises the novelty of her concept. There are years of study by "socialization researchers" who have arrived at various conclusions, often widely accepted, about the impact of parenting methods on children. Harris argues most of these are flawed in method or misleading in conclusions. Even one of its most recognized practitioners ultimately admitted the published findings were unsubstantiated. Of greater concern was that these studies have produced heavy guilt feelings in parents. When the recommended methods don't produce anticipated results "it must be my fault". Harris wants to set those troubled minds at rest by understanding the real forces involved.

The author doesn't absolve parents from influence on development. She merely recommends a new approach based on the new information. Peers may drive behaviour in unwanted directions, but parents still have the responsibility and power to set limits. Peer groups can be "chosen", chiefly through school choice. The evolutionary roots of a child's "normal" group of siblings and close relations has been broken down by modern society. Harris reminds us that the "nuclear family" is a recent, artificial concept. Modern social structure distinctly departure from long-established group forms. Parents must adapt to these new forms, chiefly through greater attention to how to place their children in supportive environments. It can be done; it has been done. We only need to shed long-held beliefs of parental inadequacies and take charge.

This book has, of course, proven contentious. Anyone overthrowing cherished beliefs, no matter how poorly founded, will be resisted. Her findings, however, fill a niche long unidentified or misunderstood. She's fully aware that not all the information is to hand. How big does a group have to be to influence a child? What makes a group leader? A follower? These remain unanswered questions. The value of this book is in asking such questions and demanding answers. That value will remain undiminished until the research is done. Read this book and learn the questions. It is the lives of children that are at stake. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada.]

Rating:
Summary: Great Writing and Content
Review: There are so many reasons to give this book five stars and no reasons that I can think of to give it fewer than four stars. Let me list my reasons for giving it five stars in order of importance with number one being most important:
1. Her ideas are original. Harrisf argument contradicts much of the current dogma.
2. Her perspective is both deep and wide. Actually I am not qualified to assess how deep is her knowledge of the various fields of psychology, but after reading this book that provided so many examples to prove her points, I was convinced of much that she argued. I think everyone will recognize the unusual breadth of her perspective as she incorporates so many different fields into this gfull pictureh view.
3. Harrisf writing is well crafted. She has no wasted space where the reader is waiting for her to make her point as are books that are light in content.
4. She is funny and witty without being caustic. Harris provides numerous humorous scenarios to illustrate her points.
5. She provides practical, detailed advice to parents that is much needed in our society.
I disagree with a few of her points like the degree of long-term influence some parents have on their children, but I donft think a prerequisite of a great book is to be 100% correct. This is a brilliant read.

Rating:
Summary: What about birth order?
Review: Very original book on developmental psychology from an evolutionary perspective. For an opposing viewpoint also from an evolutionary perspective check out Frank Sulloway's "Born to Rebel"

Rating:
Summary: Why Everything You 'Know' About Childrearing is Wrong
Review: I came to this book from Steven Pinker's THE BLANK SLATE. He devotes much of a chapter to its thesis that 'kids socialize kids; parents don't.' Harris here makes the case at length, and a rollicking good read it is.

The main argument AGAINST Harris is this: IF it doesn't matter how parents treat their kids, they will mistreat them. Harris shows the folly of this by looking at how adults relate: I can't change my friends and family--they are 'who they are' despite my best efforts to improve them--yet it never occurs to me that because I cannot remake them in my image and likeness I might as well abuse them. How silly that sounds when you think about it! (And sad.) Further, Harris is clear that parents can do great damage to their kids. She in no way sanctions abuse or neglect.

What does she say, then? She makes plain what all of us with siblings know from experience but forget when considering theories of child development. Namely, if parenting shapes kids, why are siblings so DIFFERENT? My mom and dad had four kids--I'm the only one that ever read a philosophy book or a Russian novel, the only one with a jazz collection, and the only one who (like mother) plays a musical instrument. Though I love my two brothers and my sister, and they love me, my mom (-dad's dead) admits, "You were all different from day one. Jamie was always happy, Linda felt God got it wrong because obviously SHE should be the mother and I the child, and Billy Boy was running off by himself before he could tie his shoes."

Parents provide us with genes. That matters. Much of what they consciously do, however, has little effect on how their kids turn out. (This is precisely why parents care who their kids play with--parents realize that 'the wrong crowd' can overcome all their teachings and warnings and pleadings in the course of a single fateful night.) IF parents had THE strongest influence on their kids, then the bad example of admired peers would be no threat. But it is and parents know this. So do kids.

Aside from being right, Harris is fun. She gets at the heart of why kids are embarrassed when their parents come outside. (Who hasn't cringed at a parent's visit to one's school? The constant fear is that mom or dad will utterly humiliate one in front of the other kids--this could only happen if 'the other kids' mattered more, in some sense, than mom or dad.)

I lent this book to a moral theologian here at the seminary who read it and then tokd me, "If she's not crazy, we've been mislead about child development. And she's not crazy."

He's right. She's not crazy. And parents should welcome this news, as it frees them from much useless anxiety. ("My child doesn't love opera--where did I go wrong?") Further, it invites them to respond to their children as persons, not as projects. Who could oppose that ideal?

Rating:
Summary: Well done
Review: This book appears to be very carefully put together. It's not your usual genes vs. environment infotainment. The author, and the author of her foreword, seriously overplay the outsider autodidactic myth. Harris studied at a top graduate school, has co-written textbooks on psychology, thanks numerous colleagues in her Acknowledgments, and seems to know her material extremely well.

The book is persuasive, important, and entertaining. I come away convinced of the importance of genes and of peer groups in shaping a person, but also certain that Harris sometimes overstates her case against the environmental importance of parents.
The importance of Harris' evidence for peer group influence can be seen in the example she gives of a classroom in which the teacher (who thus has some influence of her own) gets the students to unite and identify as a single group self-characterized by strong academic performance. These kids, unlike most kids given a Head Start, maintained that performance into adulthood.
If dividing a class into good and poor readers causes the first group to improve and the latter to get worse, because the poor readers decide to look down on reading skills, then one can only wonder how much longer we will go on putting misbehaving kids together with others like them, watching them get even worse, and calling this destruction a "correctional institution."
I'd like to see every educator in the country read this book, but read it carefully. Harris admits that parents have environmental effects, but either characterizes these as inessential or complains that they are unpredictable. On p. 329 Harris says that parents may affect a person's choice of profession or leisure activities, but on p. 330 denies that they can have any impact on "what sort of person" a child becomes. On p. 341 Harris makes the same point using the analogy of marriage:
"Marriage can change your opinions and influence your choice of a career or a religion. But it doesn't change your personality, except in temporary, context-dependent ways."
What REALLY MATTERS, I'm guessing, is the sort of stuff asked about on personality inventories. But does Harris believe that whether you are bold, shy, loving, trustful, humorous, or depressed is unconnected with such mere contexts as marriage, religion, career, and leisure activities - not to mention everything typically done with families rather than peers? What interest should I take in a personality that exists somewhere outside such realms?
Well, I'm not being entirely fair. Harris' point that children may behave one way at home and another way with their friends is a good one. And she herself points out that personality tests vary with context. But, then, why dismiss personality changes as "temporary, context-dependent"? Aren't all aspects of all personalities temporary and context-dependent?
I cannot change my opinions without changing my personality, and I doubt that anyone can. I resist playing different roles in different contexts (but recognize that this is problematic). I've changed on my own and by reading books since I passed the age at which Harris thinks people are fixed for life. And I've been changed by marriage.
When Harris is not dismissing parental influence as inessential, she is complaining that it is not predictable. The same parenting can have different effects on different kids. Well, yes. Parenting is an art, not a science. Nowhere in her book does Harris mention the fact that lasting effects of peer influences are also unpredictable.
Although Harris wants to maintain that certain aspects of a person are fixed by age 20 or 25, she also acknowledges that people change in significant ways after that time, not to mention before it. Yes, parents only affect how kids behave with parents, but peers affect how kids behave with peers. This can as easily be stated: Peers only affect how kids behave with that group of peers, but parents affect how they behave with their parents. Harris has added an insight, but is intent on making it into a conflict and a fight to the death.
I'm quibbling, as is my wont. But I recognize my own life and those of others in Harris' descriptions of peer groups. I have never accepted my own parents' view that their every move shaped my character. I've always attributed more influence to genes and peers, just never quite to the complete exclusion of parenting.
Parenting is, of course, important during the first couple of years, and in the ways that Harris acknowledges toward the end of her book. It also may have some effects that are slow to appear. When kids stop trying to be unlike adults (as Harris characterizes teenagerhood) they are likely to remember and observe anew how their parents behave.
When I have kids I intend to recognize the genetic presence of human beings, not blank slates. I intend to take into consideration the importance of peers and groups. I intend not to worry too much about molding my kids, since I probably won't mold them much but may insult them by suggesting that I can. And I plan to make their childhoods as happy as possible and to do what I can to influence them in ways I see as beneficial and likely to be successful, based, if not on any studies, on my best guess given the details involved and the extreme incapacity of social science to analyze them all.
Indirect genetic effects (such as the love given to an especially attractive kid) are environmental, and everything environmental is filtered through genes. Only in large studies can genes and environment be separated, not in individuals.
Family environment is part of peer groups, and vice versa. Young children may allow more of their family lives to enter their peer activities. Teenagers may be teenagers because they have given more importance to their peer groups and allowed more of that world to enter their homes.