Rating: 
Summary: Psychobabble debates psychobabble
Review: This book is brought to you by the same publisher as the Bell Curve, has the same kind of phony science and will appeal in the same way to those with a bias in search of justifications that sound like science but on closer examination is nonsense by the numbers. It is psychobabble fighting psychobabble. But babble nonetheless.One of the better reviews here said it is opium for the me-generation. The implications are astounding. If its proposition that parents matter little, if at all. is to be defended it had best have a more qualified advocate and a better book. Parents have influence but not control. Other people in general and other children in particular, also have influence. There is no single causal pathway. So what? To reach the conclusion that there are many influences on children can be argued without diminishing the role of the parent to the extent that this author does, in her arrogance. In the forward Pinker says: "It has always seemed obvious to me that children are socialized by their parents." Really? Why is that obvious? To me it seems patently absurd. Other people in general and other children in particular play a major role in that. Does that mean parents have no influence at all? In reading this book one must keep in mind that a lack of evidence for X does not prove X or Not X. A lack of evidence is just a lack of evidence. It proves nothing! A poorly designed study that failed to provide evidence for the hypothesis--does not mean the hypothesis is wrong. Just that the evidence was not there. If the poorly designed studies, as to the relationship between the behavior of the parents and the long term personality of the offspring, do not provide evidence for that influence, it could be the studies are poorly designed or even that vaguely defined personality concepts are beyond the scope of scientific research. To leap to conclusions that parents are of no influence because psychologists have designed terrible research is absurd. On page one a reader begins to suspect the author is going to spend 362 pages setting up straw men and then knocking them down. She says: "...parents provide the environment. The nurture." Really? I have never heard a thoughtful person equate parents with the whole of the environment. But then we see immediately that we will be asked to chase our intellectual tails. The problem is, and has always been that nature and nurture are sloppy concepts that lead more to confusion than enlightenment. Vague terms like environment are no better. The author uses their obscurity as a smoke screen to hide her leaps to unsupported conclusions. The author seems to be aiming at those who do "socialization studies" and she makes clear that the conclusions drawn from the correlational and epidemiological studies are suspect. They may be poorly designed and unlikely to ever lead to defensible conclusions about the influence of anything, including parents. Sloppy research proves nothing. In the quotation from the Swiss researchers "This kind of research is a sheer waste of time and money." The reference is to birth order studies. But a lack of evidence in poorly designed studies does not permit conclusions that parents have no (or even little) influence. This is too important a topic for this author and this book. In a nation where parental neglect of their children is epidemic we do not need a third rate intellect giving another excuse. We need parental love and care for their children. It pays. We need no psychobabble to know it pays.
Rating: 
Summary: It DOES take a village after all!
Review: Judith Harris' courageous book challenges the overwhelming orthodoxy in America, that families are the "be all and the end all," and that parents are of utmost importance in raising children (or as homophobic right wingers like to say, the best people to raise a child are "one daddy and one mommy" as opposed to, for instance, two daddies or two mommies or one daddy or one mommy, etc.). Harris' book is, therefore, a breath of fresh air in the tired, stale atmosphere surrounding all things related to families and children. What if, Harris asks, around half of how children turns out is genetics, and of the other half, most of that is related to the child's TOTAL environment (including neighborhood, schools, peers, siblings, and - somewhere in there, but trailing far behind - parents). Besides threatening to put psychoanalysts everywhere out of business ("you mean it WASN'T my parents; fault after all? So why am I paying $100 an hour to lay on your couch and talk about my controlling mother and absent father? I'm outta here! "), Harris's book throws at least one small monkey wrench in the seemingly unstoppable (and truly tiresome) pro-family rhetoric spewing from the mouths of every politician in America. If Harris is right, then basically the conservatives are wrong (parents, unless they are truly horrible or truly amazing -- are of questionable importance at best in the rearing of children, according to Harris) and Hillary Clinton is right (it DOES take a village...and in fact it is the village that is of utmost importance in how children turn out, NOT the parents). In addition (and again unlike many "pro-family" types) Harris provides actual research and data (what a concept!) to back up her claims. But, unfortunately, Harris is fighting a strongly entrenched viewpoint, with lots of vested interests (how many parents are going to admit that they really don't matter much in their children's upbringing? And how many politicians are going to say, "you know, it's not really the family, it's the society, stupid!"?) Well, maybe not many, but Harris' book is a start at least towards getting at least some [openminded] people to think differently. Whether she succeeds in starting a revolution in this area is doubtful, but still, it's refreshing that SOMEONE out there has had the courage to state a view outside the mainstream on such an emotional issue. Thank you Judith Harris!
Rating:
Summary: Very informative
Review: According to this book the personalities of children are shaped by their social groups and not by their parents. In all other social animals the individual modifies its behavior to accommodate the needs of the group. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that human behavior is shaped in the same way. After reading this book I feel much less paranoid that I will screw up my child by being too strict or not strict enough, because her peer group and her genetics will form her personality not me.
Rating:
Summary: Challenges us to think and talk about parenting !
Review: This is a very difficult book to review, almost as difficult as it was to read. It is not difficult to read because of technical sophisication, but because both content and style trigger very strong emotions. Make no mistake, this is not an "unscientific" or hastily written defense of bad parenting, as has been claimed in some of the prior reviews here. Agree or not, she does handle the research with competence, discipline, and insight. She does not handle it all objectively, at least in the book. Moreover, it's questionable that the rhetorical purpose of questioning a mainstream dogma could be accomplished by a "balanced" approach to surveying the extant research. This book challenges us to think of specific ways in which we influence our children's behavior and traits outside the home, other than through heredity. Yes, as many critics claim, we can find some. Aside from the early developmental issues which Harris acknowledges, we teach our children basic problem solving and moral reasoning that they often apply when we are not around. If she had recognized more of that, and written more about that, many of the harsher and more sophisticated criticisms would probably be somewhat assuaged. Her evolutionary argument about children doing what is neccessary to survive childhood is not at all inconsistent with the notion that parents do have some survival and coping skills to provide. Even within group socialization theory, the skills don't have to come from the group, they are selected by interaction with the group. My bone of contention with most of the critics is that this doesn't really upend the group socialization theory. It largely shows that parental influence is less pervasive and overwhelming than the popular and social science models assume. That message would probably have inspired less virulent criticism, but also less praise from supporters and certainly would have made for less of a controversy. Harris assuredly makes some very profound points about the foundation of the social science model of parenting. Yet it is hard to avoid the feeling that she goes way overboard in spots. The greatest challenge in reading this book is completing it with an objective enough mindset to appreciate what she is really bringing to the discussion. Sometimes she does seem, as her many critics contend, to be, by implication, waving away parental responsibility. Yet by struggling through and giving her the benefit of the doubt, I found this criticism overturned by the end of the book. She does not outright say that parenting doesn't matter at all, she says that it matters most to the family relations, and less to traits and qualities as measured in other contexts. In the process, she challenges the reader to think of ways in which we influence our children, and ways they resist that influence. One of the most interesting points made in the book, and one often glossed over in reviews, is Harris' defense of the concept of social context as a determining factor in behavior. In other words, that we take on different roles in different situations, in much more than a trivial sense. This is a necessary and profound part of her scientific argument, though perhaps it has little impact compared to the conclusion that the effect of parenting is different than we generally assume. I fear that some profound theoretical issues like this will become victims of the more general controversy over what Harris says and implies about parenting, and some of her more extreme conclusions. In the end, I rated this book so highly not just because it is good science writing, and because it constantly engaged me and made me think hard, but because thinking about these things and talking about them with each other is part of good parenting.
Rating:
Summary: A seminal book in the new psychological paradigm shift
Review: Bound to infuriate the hidebound in matters of psychology and development, Harris's book performs an ample service--it helps demolish the "Standard Social Science Model" that has dominated (indeed, dictated) thought for the past century. This is not welcome news for "psychotherapists" and other holdovers from the Mead-Freud-Skinner era, but for those looking for a remarkable new way of seeing the world, this is it. Put it beside Steven Pinker's "How the Mind Works."
Rating:
Summary: Save Your Money
Review: This book is an excellent prototype for faulty reasoning. Harris' main argument is that, because our children behave differently at home than in other contexts, then our influence is limited to the home. Sorry, Harris, but this is non sequitur: your conclusion does not logically emanate from your assumptions. Harris' blunder is trying to come up with a simple explanation for an extremely complex process: the formation of human personality. Let us accept Harris' proposition that our children behave differently in school than at home. Nevertheless, it cannot be discounted that the school behavior is influenced by the child's relationship with his or her parents and siblings, by the child's entire home environment, even if such school behavior is not equivalent to home behavior. In fact, our different selves are a result of all our experiences in the home, in school, in the playground, in church, etc. We are certainly not robots. We do change from moment to moment, context to context. We experience different emotions. Even at home, children - and adults - display different "faces". I can be sweet to my child, but when I lose my temper, I can seem like a totally different person. Does this mean my child does not influence me? Another "evidence" she cites is how subservient middle children can become dominant with peers. Could this not be an over-compensation for the child's powerlessness in the home? And therefore, is this not evidence to the contrary, that the home does influence the child's behavior outside the home? Harris herself says that parents can "guide" their children in their choice of peers. Therefore, as she often does in this book, Harris contradicts herself. Parents can not only influence their child's choice of peers but also how the child relates to peers, and how the child is influenced by peers and vice versa. Harris acknowledges the influences of other caregivers, such as daycare workers, but easily downplays the influence of parents. Since brain research has proven that even the earliest interaction with parents can organically affect a child's brain, such downplaying is unacceptable. The simple truth of the matter is that human personality is influenced by many factors. Children are influenced by their TOTAL ENVIRONMENT - parents, peers, caregivers, television, books, music, computer games, etc., included. Sure, peers affect children, but parents can make a difference in the extent and the manner in which peer influence takes place. Therefore, parents can be viewed as an intervening variable in the simple cause-and-effect relationship that Harris puts forward. Harris also confuses influence with total control. Certainly, parents and all other influences have only a limited effect in a person's personality. Just because we cannot force our child to become a doctor when she is naturally inclined to the arts, does not mean that we have zero influence at all. Harris' logic is so faulty that this book wouldn't pass a discerning thesis adviser's eye. Don't be fooled by her use of numerous "scientific" studies, either. They do not necessarily support her reasoning, and they raise more questions than they answer. Just look at how she uses a study of how children of deaf parents learn to speak, implying that children pick up language through some invisible process of osmosis. Preposterous! Harris proposes a "chuck 'em or change 'em" view towards theories. This is precisely what I intend to do with hers. Harris' theory cannot explain why my daughter sounds like my husband or me when she talks. Why, because we run a non-violent household, she acts compassionately towards her classmates. Why, at home, I can teach her to deal with bullies, and she successfully uses these strategies in school. Why teenagers are less likely to start smoking if their parents themselves do not smoke. Why children who were abused by their parents tend to grow up into abusers themselves. Aside from muddling the truth, Harris runs the risk of letting parents off the hook, giving them the rationale for neglecting their parental responsibilities and, as Harris herself admits to having done, giving up on their children. It is telling that Harris chose to use Cinderella to illustrate many of her points. Cinderella is a fairy tale, and so is this book.
Rating: 
Summary: The Devil's in the Extremes
Review: THE NURTURE ASSUMPTION is a thoroughly engaging book that breathes new life into the nature/nuture debate. Harris' insights regarding the role of genetics and peers in shaping personality appear powerful and persuasive. Also, the position that socialization is not something parents "do" to their children, but what children "do" with each other in groups could not be explained and detailed any better than here. Reading the work of an iconoclast can be exciting indeed...And yet, it seems painfully obvious that Harris is oversimplifying. Her insistence that parents have no ultimate impact on how their children turn out (after bequeathing their genes)seems far too extremist. The nature/nurture (er, nature/peer group) debate has been raging for generations, and to pounce exclusively on a one-sided theory about the mystery of human development seems unscientifically presumptive. Carefullly stated caveats and words like "seems" or "appears" or "possibly" are conspicuously missing from the text. Harris' insistence that divorce, fatherlessness, and abuse/neglect have no long-term impact on children is in many ways counter-intuitive...As an alternative to the extremes and absolutes, could it not be possible that parents and peers exert more influence on generally discrete "parts" of the personality? For example, might the environment that parents provide in the home have more influence in determining whether a child will be more loving or spiteful, trusting or guarded, generous or stingy, considerate or selfish? Likewise, might peers have more influence determining whether a child will generally be shy or outgoing, passive or aggressive, serious or silly, a leader or a follower? All these may be considered elements of personality, but parents and peers may vary greatly in their ability to shape and influence some traits more than others...As Harris points out (sometimes scornfully), research in child development has too often overlooked the importance of the peer group, focusing almost solely on the parent-child relationship. Yet Harris volleys to the other extreme, discrediting the capacity for parents to have even a smidgen of influence on their children. Neither extreme is fully embraceable. The "truth" probably lies somewhere in the middle, as it usually does, but even in the middle there is bound to be some mysterious force that we cannot account for...So despite her compulsion to overstate and oversimplify, Harris deserves praise for writing such a thought-provoking and controversial book and enlivening the nature/nurture debate. More than likely, her theories will deservedly receive at least a passing mention in future child development textbooks. THE NURTURE ASSUMPTION is a recommended read for those of us who ponder why we are the way we are.
Rating:
Summary: Right! Right! Right! Someone finally has it Right!
Review: This teaching family, six educators, grades K-16, (plus 3 degrees in psychology) agrees that this book is indeed a shift in thinking and one that finally faces up to some important truths. Those psychologists who are crying foul and using their lofty psychobabble to discredit this work likely have not observed first hand the long-range development of student behavior, or perhaps they just have too great a stake in their own precious (and hard-learned) notions. Granted, the author goes a bit overboard in discounting the parental influence quite so completely, but one doesn't have to accept every word to recognize the kernal of truth present in the basic premise. In our over 100 years of collective teaching we have watched students change completely according to the peer group they were with at the time. (Classroom Angel to Neighborhood Terror) (Elementary School Honor Student turning into a Middle School Dropout) It is quite hard to accept that as parents we have only a certain amount of influence, but there it is. Teachers, counselors, and parents could all benefit from giving the ideas in this book careful consideration.
Rating: 
Summary: Too optimistic with social engineering, too "bootstrapper"
Review: In fact, miss Harris, despite her good attempt to understand children development in scientific terms, still remains a terrible skynnerian! Yes, The power of the good master of the old times of Harvard still remains in the hurt of US society. What miss Harris really does is to exchange the nurture concept (which was correctly debunked) by the concept of group socialization by the same logical means: i.e. the immediate environment "conditionates" the expression of genes (not more the "organism" or the "subject"). Of course, Harris could say it is not truth. She could say that the role of the peer environment is the "activation" of some genes in the "right" or in the "wrong" way. However, it is not possible to claim. Unless the writer is capable to stablish the link between "nature" (the basis of the potential behavior) and the environment where the genes can be expressed (e.g. peer social environment), we cannot claim anything about the logic of the postulated relation. Harris did not do it. Moreover, we can imagine that the "other half" could be a matter of **genetic variability**, where the environment to the specific traits considered could remain stable to the population. For instance, we can say that 50% of the height of a sequoia in a forest depends on the intensity of light it receives. Inasmuch we are capable to find any different sequoias height in the same forest, we can also find that the light intensity (responsible for 50% of the height of the tree), which is an environment variable, remains about the same to all the forest. So, the differences of height really found among the trees of the forest is a consequence of the variability of the **genes** -- even if the environment is responsible for 50% of the trait. So, in terms of population analysis of the traits and behaviors what really counts is, I am affraid to say, the genetics of the traits... Ricardo Holmer Hodara (psychologist) and Marli Hodara (phd History of Science) BRASIL
Rating:
Summary: Funny, challenging and empowering. A must read for educators
Review: As an educator who works with at-risk youth, I found this book very enlightening and challenging. However, the author did not succeed at her goal of alleviating guilt. Now I feel bad for every time I assumed a child's personality was the result of bad parenting. However for educators and educational researchers this is a very empowering book. Schools really can make a long term difference in the life of a child.
|
