Rating: 
Summary: Look at both sides before deciding
Review: As Barry Goldwater once said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." The Nurture Assumption is an extremist, and therefore extremely interesting and revealing book. The argument that genes and peer group experiences shape personality development, and families/parents do not, is presented in a one-sided, selective, and impressive broadside.
Rating: 
Summary: Homeschool views are unfounded.
Review: I am apalled at this book. It is a slap in the face to parents.While the author views going to public school herself as painful due to lack of friends and not being a sophisticated person, she explains that when she was home she felt so much happier. Her statement claiming that homeschooled children can become social misfits is unfounded. She states that by homeschooling we can protect our children from the influence of kids in school. She contradicts herself here by saying we may produce misfits, poorly suited for the world in which they will eventually have to live. What about the world they are living in now? They are people afterall. They need to mature, in this day and age, in a nurturing environment and with much guidance until they are able to handle the world on their own moreson than ever before. We need to protect our children. I feel her ideas are from the 1950's and she has not been out in the world today to see homeschoolers or nurturing mothers as they truely live today. ...
Rating: 
Summary: The quest for scholarly scientific standards?
Review: Increasingly, it appears that psychologists today have abandoned the scholarly scientific approach of examining and weighing all relevant evidence, in favor of a new "lawyer-advocate" model of argumentation and attempted persuasion. Like a lawyer in a courtroom presentation, this book seems to begin with a conclusion (a "client") and then to present selectively only those findings that favor the client, the apriori 'conclusion' of the author. For example, the 'review' of the research literature on the developmental psychology of peer relationships is highly selective and tendentious -- perhaps some might even call it unscholarly. Of course Harry Stack Sullivan was right that peer relationships are highly significant in personality development, but that does not rule out everything else. As summarized in the recent book 'Liars, Lovers, & Heroes' the development of the brain takes years and genetic 'programs' depend upon and interact with environmental inputs. The claim that parents have no effects on this developmental process is implausible. Certainly behavior genetics research indicates that family effects on child development tend to be unique-individual effects rather than common family effects, but that is only what anyone who understands the individuality of temperament and brain development would expect. Saying that 'common family environment effects' are small does not mean that 'unique-individual family environment effects' are small. On the contrary. So read this book as a case study in how contemporary psychology may have lost its way from watching too many TV lawyer shows and talk show debates. And hope that the scientific method will be more clearly visible in psychology soon.
Rating: 
Summary: At last, a theory that might pan out
Review: In The Nurture Assumption, Judith Rich Harris attacks the idea that parents play a major role in the formation of their childrens' personalities. To date, the only studies that find consistent effects of parenting style or parent personality on the behavior of children are small, and often confounded by social class, genetic effects, and the childrens' peer groups. This last variable gets the most attention by Harris. The best example she uses is the English lad shipped off to boarding school at age 8. He is not raised by his father, and yet he ends up just like his father. How? Once you eliminate social class and genetic factors, the only component left over is the environment of the boarding school, with its rituals, structure, and constant peer group that has been unchanged for generations. Harris asserts that this peer group is what explains the most about a child's personality. His grades and attitudes towards school are shaped by his peers. His openness and confidence are shaped by his peers. And so on. Luckily for Harris' theory, the usual suspects such as social class and parenting style so far have almost no evidence in their favor. I must stress that Harris' theory is relatively new, stemming from an article she wrote in 1995. It will be many years before her ideas are fully tested and accepted. Still, it should be reassuring to many parents that their child's hatred of peas has nothing to do with how many times they were hugged as babies. At a minimum, The Nurture Assumption takes conventional wisdom about how parents shape their kids and knocks it to the floor. I recommend it to all parents and students of human behavior and personality.
Rating:
Summary: Dangerous, Simplistic and Irresponsible
Review: So am I to conclude that the reason I take off my hat indoors and open doors for those behind me is because of my peers? This book is dangerous. Harris has taken culpability from the parent (aside from passing genes) and placed it on the child's peers. If people believe the view espoused here, they may give up on providing interventions for problem behvior--as it is predetermined anyway. The fact that peers are important to development does not necessarily imply that parents are not. Harris does not adequately address the role that parents play in monitoring their children's peer interactions. Harris's conclusions are based on a simplistic and selective reading of behavioral genetic literature. She either does not understand the terminology or analyses used by behavioral geneticists or she chooses to interpret them for the benefit of her view. The environment plays a role in all genetic effects on social behavior. She obviously has no appreciation for the complexity of social and emotional development.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting ideas, but many questions unanswered/ignored
Review: As a mother of an almost 2 year old child, I picked up this book as it seemed a quite interesting read. And it is. Although, as others have said before, it does get a bit repetitive. I think it's good that the pressure is taken off of the parents, as perfection isn't achievable. But it just raises so many questions in my mind.. It seems that Harris thinks she can explain the effects of the social environment on children by looking at children growing up in cultures decidedly different from our own. Which is an interesting premise, but it doesn't quite qualify to rule out parents' contribution to their children's development. All it does is show that within an environment where parents aren't present/able to teach something, children will learn it from their peers. When parents are a larger part of the social context in which their children grow up, their contribution to the final result will be larger, too.
I think Harris overlooks the fact that children are likely to be different in how much they will be formed by their parents, and how much by their peers. Furthermore, the fact that children behave differently in different social contexts doesn't rule out that they'll behave like their parents within the context of their own future family.
In raising my son, I've definitely recognized my parents upbringing seeping though. Doesn't everybody sometimes stop and think: "wow, I sound just like my mother/father"? Finally, what I kept on thinking throughout reading the book, is that raising your child with love & respect - even if it has no effect on the final outcome of your child's character - will make the time you spend together under one roof so much more pleasureable. And they'll even want to visit you for Christmas (or whatever it is that you celebrate)!
Rating:
Summary: Best book on Psichology I ever read.
Review: I DONT believe everything I read, but this book
clearly shows some of the misconceptions of
today's psychology. Of course it has its pitfalls. Its a book
that shows an opposite point of view to
common ideas, and sometimes the author gives
you the feeling that its ideas are a replacement
to psychology instead of a complement. A book that mental health professionals MUST READ
from beggining to end.
Rating:
Summary: Peerist Social Darwinism
Review: "It's also disturbing that the only advice she can muster is to buy a nice house in a nice neighborhood and to get your ugly kids plastic surgery. Only the rich pretty kids have good friends, Ms. Harris implies." This is the same Ms. Harris who is anti-homeschooling - even though homeschooling/unschooling, when done by conscientous parents, results in quality education. The kids are also happier, healthier, and better socialized without having to go through a dehumanizing "education" at some government clone farm (school). Finding the right neighborhood is not as easy as it looks. Remember than Columbine was in some nice 6'8", blonde, upper-class WASP neighborhood filled with rich pretty ultra-conventional churchgoing kids who were the biggest psychopathic bullies in recent history. I'm referring to the jocks and cheerleaders. And Ms. Harris wonders why some parents are scared to let their kids go to schools like these? Evidently Ms. Harris is in favor of using peer pressure to mold America into a social darwinist caste society, a larger Hollywood (or Columbine). Peerism is her religion and political ideology. America was built not by "peer groups", but by intelligent, sensitive, independent thinkers who would now be labelled "freaks", rammed with Ritalin, or bullied to suicide.
The hell with peers. Modern kids need parents, family, and friends (not peers).
Rating:
Summary: Everything You Think You Know is Wrong
Review: This is a book that will make you rethink all of your assumptions about the effects of child-rearing. Harris takes all of the recent developmental psychology studies and shows that the don't demonstrate what we think they do. Harris' theory is a simple one: While "nurture" contributes substantially to the composition of the personality and character of a child, the parent turns out to be only a small part of that mix. This flies in the face of all of our cherished beliefs about modern parenting, quality time, loving guidance, and positive discipline. I was prepared to resist Harris' thesis to the death, but I found her arguments compelling. In the end, she won me over: If you look at the studies, if you examine your common sense notions, if you look at the way primitive societies raise their children, and if you do so without preconception, it is reasonable to believe that parental rearing styles are only a very small factor in how children turn out. This is both comforting and scary. It is comforting because it removes a lot of the pressure to be the "perfect parent" and it is scary, because it shows how little control you truly have as a parent. In short, this is not just another "parenting" book, it may force you to throw away most of the parenting books you already own. Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: A Must-Read for Parents
Review: This book calls into question much of today's conventional wisdom regarding families and child-raising. The author points out the lack of conclusory evidence regarding the long-term effects of divorce, parenting styles (strict versus lenient), single parenting, early attachment and Freudian concepts. It also points out that culture-which does affect personality, at least to some extent--is transmitted through peer influence more than parental influence. The book suggests that parents' true role is to enjoy their kids and to provide them with opportunities--to attend good schools, to live in good neighborhoods, to fit in with their peers to the extent their peers are positive influences and to remove kids, if necessary (and possible), from negative peer or cultural influences. This book is on my short list of books that actually changed my way of thinking.
| 
