Rating: 
Summary: What she didn't say is here
Review: Baumrind, Diana. The average expectable environment is not good enough: A response to Scarr. Child Development. Vol 64(5), Oct 1993, 1299-1317.The above reference is the other side of the coin. Ask your library to get a copy of it to see what Harris didn't tell you.
Rating: 
Summary: A completely new look at why we are who we are
Review: This book is a true 'paradigm-shifter'. In my readings on the socialistation of children, this is also the first book I have found in a long time which almost totally accords with what I consider to be common-sense notions, that parents are simply not the be all and end all of why we turn out the way we are. The great tragedy of the way some people have received this book is the tendency at times to criticise the implications of the author's argument, or to mount personal attacks on the author, rather than to question the truth of what the author is saying. One criticism levelled at 'The Nurture Assumption' it merely relieves bad parents of guilt. This is not true. Children have rights to be treated well - and they possess these rights as children - not merely as future adults. The originality and intellectual fertility of 'The Nurture Assumption' is a great contribution to our search for the answer to the eternal question of why we are who we are.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent book that destroys many unfounded assumptions
Review: I found this book to be excellent. It is very detailed on WHY so many of the popular assumptions are just not true. Points out many errors and biases in the popular media and advice about what really affects a child.
Rating:
Summary: Every peer group has the ability to create it's own culture.
Review: When I read Harris' book I felt very strongly that she had come upon a truth. I too, frequently wondered about children and their abillity to create a new language when they lacked a common language. I felt that somehow this fact was more than a curiosity. It said something very profound about humans. Judith Harris' theory has a lot of explaining power. I highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Must read, even if you want to disagree
Review: This book asks a question that is interesting to many people: what factors explain the personality differences in people? The author starts by reporting on studies that show that about half of the differences can be explained genetically. Most social scientists would agree with that assessment. But what about the half that cannot be explained genetically? The author deals with this in three steps. 1. The _assumption_ that parenting style matters is attacked by showing that the evidence for it is merely anecdotal. Rigorous attempts to quantify the effect of parents fail to show more than a negligible impact. 2. An alternative theory is developed. She suggests, based on evolutionary biology, that there might be a greater role for peer groups than parents in shaping personality. This is a very interesting section of the book, because even outside of the context of the theory, the observations of how groups form and interact are interesting. 3. The author tries to provide empirical support for the "group socialization" theory. Ironically, to my untrained eye, this evidence appears to be largely of the anecdotal variety derided in step 1! And nowhere is there a clear demonstration of the quantitative importance of peer groups. I believe that the author has succeeded in raising the "group socialization" theory to the same level of plausibility as the nurture assumption. But I came away feeling that neither theory is well supported. I suspect that we may never prove that anything other than genetic factors matter in personality. A large component of the "other half" could be measurement error. A physical characteristic, such as eye color, is a relatively well-defined concept that can be measured fairly precisely. Not so with "intelligence" or "aggressiveness." These are fuzzy concepts, measured imperfectly. The mere attempt to measure these concepts induces random variation. Imagine how difficult it would be to explain height differences if we weren't quite sure what "height" really means, and if the measurements were based on rulers with 20 percent margins of error! Try to read the book with an open mind.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting writing
Review: I think she is definitely on to something. What I found interesting was how close her writing style was to the author Steven Pinker's ( the Language Instinct; How the Mind Works) It made me wonder if they collaborated on it. Anyway, it was entertaining. I hope it continues to stir things up.
Rating:
Summary: Save your money
Review: Parents Do Matter. . . and There is NO Controversy By John Sommers-Flanagan Oprah Winfrey has a bookclub. In her bookclub, she reviews and promotes what she considers to be a good and/or important read. When an author gets included in Oprah's bookclub, watch out: sales are likely to soar. Because there are obvious differences between Oprah and myself, I have decided to launch a somewhat different enterprise. I am hereby establishing the Sommers-Flanagan anti-bookclub. Today's anti-bookclub selection is entitled, The Nurture Assumption. It is written by Judith Rich Harris and includes perhaps the longest subtitle in the history of publishing: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do; Parents Matter Less Than You Think and Peers Matter More. Actually, Ms. Harris' book would never have made my exclusive anti-bookclub list without significant help from the liberal and/or conservative media. As an example, Newsweek magazine apparently considers The Nuture Assumption so hot that it deserves to be on its September 7th cover, along with the highly misleading headline: "A New Heated Debate About How Kids Develop. . . Do Parents Matter?" They further claim that Harris' book is "becoming the publishing phenom of the season." My perspective on this book and its publication is simple. In the absence of news about anything other than the President's sex life, certain authors and media organizations try their best to create a debate or controversy to sell their product. Now in most cases, I am more than open to a little media hype and sensationalism. But in this particular case, the media has intentionally promoted the idea that, in Newsweek's words: "virtually nothing [parents] do or say-- no kind words or hugs, slaps or tirades. . . --makes a smidgen of a difference to what kind of adult the child becomes. Nothing parents do will affect his behavior, mental health, ability to form relationships, sense of self-worth, intelligence or personality." The fact is that Ms. Harris and Newsweek are astonishingly wrong on both of their major claims. First of all, PARENTS MATTER. . . and secondly, THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY about whether parents matter. These truths are so obvious that even Harris does not believe her central thesis. Early in her text she states: "There is no question that the adult caregivers play an important role in the baby's life. It is from these older people that babies learn their first language, have their first experiences in forming and maintaining relationships, and get their first lessons in following rules (p. 12)." Then, she devotes nearly 400 pages to her own well-written, but Swiss cheese views of parental influence and child development research. Her personal agenda thus fulfilled, she proceeds to insult her reader's memory by listing numerous ways in which parents can influence their children. And perhaps the most astounding aspect of this list is that it is excellent--quite out of place in a book that insists parent-child interactions have no influence on children. Her conclusions include: 1. Parents can influence their children's choice of professional and leisure time activities. 2. Parents influence the way their children behave at home. 3. Parents supply knowledge and training that their children can take with them after they leave the home. 4. Parents can influence their child's choice of religion. 5. Parents can influence how their children eventually run a home. 6. Parents can influence their children's peer relationships by choosing to live in a particular neighborhood or by enrolling their child in a particular school. I can only heartily agree with Ms. Harris' views of how parents can influence their children. It turns out that Ms. Harris has an axe or two to grind. First and foremost, she still harbors resentment over being "kicked out" (her words) of Harvard's Ph.D. program for having inadequate research potential. Second, as is often the case with family-oriented nonfiction, at times she seems to be unabashedly trying to work through her own parent-child conflicts. She states: "With our second child we had all sorts of rules and none of them worked. Reason with her? Give me a break. Often we ended up taking the shut-your-mouth-and-do-what-you're-told route. That didn't work either. In the end we pretty much gave up" (p. 48). My message to parents couldn't be more different! Never give up on your children-- or on yourself. Although you can bet that neither you or your children are perfect, your efforts to improve your parenting could end up making all the difference in the world to you and your children. Never underestimate your influence. In my mind, Ms. Harris' biggest disservice to parents is that after hundreds of pages of pretentious scientific analysis, she boils their options down to two simplistic choices. She indicates that parents can either assume (a) that children are powerfully influenced by every parent-child interaction (and therefore parents must feel profound guilt for their many parenting mistakes) or (b) that parents really don't matter much at all (thereby relieving parents of any sense of guilt or responsibility). In providing these choices, Ms. Harris grossly underestimates the intelligence and conscience of most American parents. She fails to identify a third and more important choice. That is, most parents choose to take, rather than shirk, responsibility for their parenting behaviors; that parents can choose to parent the best they can, recognizing that, as humans, they will make both minor and terrible mistakes that may powerfully influence their children. And finally, rather than rationalizing away their shortcomings because of parental irrelevance, parents can choose to forgive themselves after having learned from their parenting mistakes. In conclusion, the Sommers-Flanagan anti-bookclub recommends that you take the $26.00 that you might have used to buy The Nurture Assumption and spend it on a quality parent-child experience. The time, effort, and money you spend on your children matter-- more than most of us (especially Ms. Harris and Newsweek) wish to admit. ********************************** John Sommers-Flanagan is a clinical psychologist and executive director of Families First, a Missoula-based parent education organization. He is the Author of Tough Kids, Cool Counseling published by the American Counseling Association.
Rating:
Summary: She is definitely on the right track.
Review: As the mother of three lovely boys under the age of 5, (and someone who babysat for countless other children throughout my teens and early twenties), she is finally documenting what I've been telling people for years: that every newborn baby is already a "full" person with a well-developed temperament and lots of preferences. I am constantly complimented on my sweet-natured, delightful children -- and I always decline the credit. My boys are very similar in certain ways, but also different from each other in many other ways. Particularly with my 4 year old, who has always been the most impervious to our influence: my husband and I have knocked ourselves out over the years to interest him in certain activities, teach him certain skills (like speaking or recognizing colors) or interest him in a certain toy, and we have had absolutely NO success -- ever. He was very precocious in doing some things and late doing others, but he did things ONLY when and if HE wanted to, and in his own way. Lots of the things he did, or interests he developed, were things that would have never occurred to us to have taught him or to expose him to at that age. He let me know early on just how relatively "irrelevant" I am! Of course, being a mother, I can never stop trying -- but I am somewhat reconciled to my role as affectionate observer (and caretaker) of the development of my growing children. Actually, I even think that Harris is being a little over-generous about the influence of peer-groups on the child (and that parents should at least try to influence the peer groups.) I believe that children gravitate towards those peer-groups which match or compliment their true nature. The parents of a rough, at-risk child can try to hook that child up with more balanced children, but the gentler children aren't going to put up with the rough, impulsive kid anymore than vice-versa. Except with certain very impressionable children, probably the best that could be expected with peer-group changes (or even intensive therapy) would be just marginal improvements.
Rating: 
Summary: A good hypothesis and interesting theory for kid's behavior.
Review: I find the reviews more interesting and entertaining than the book itself. Look, all Harris is doing is presenting a theory. What's everyone getting so wound up about? I think the book is too long and redundant myself. Just read the last chapter to get a taste of what she is saying. This is not a book of lies or scientific untruths. She is presenting a hypothesis of beliefs. Freud and Jung from a practical point of view are worthless but good reads. Yet people revere them as some sort of gods. There are enough journals out in the world to validate anyone's belief system. I do family therapy and find the book fairly accurate. I do not believe this is an extreme book at all. I also believe Harris has very successfully succeeded in bringing dialogue and discussion between people. Good mind fodder!
Rating:
Summary: Thought-provoking but unbalanced
Review: Although I think Harris deserves considerable commendation for raising this issue, and although I agree that "nature" has been greatly undervalued in the nature-vs. nurture controversy, I question the universal applicability of her conclusions. Today, a child is likely to have had several "peer groups" before he/she ever starts school: day care, play groups, preschool or Head Start, etc. And if he/she has a single parent, or if both parents work, the amount of time the child actually spends under his/her parents' supervision is relatively small. By contrast, when I grew up in the 1950's, my stay-at-home mother supervised me virtually every minute of the day: she woke me up in the morning and put me to bed at night, clothed me, watched over me while I ate, read to me, and supervised my interactions with other children. I never had a babysitter who wasn't a relative; I never played with a group of children outside my family until I started kindergarten at age 5. But fads in parenting come and go, and what was considered "good mothering" in that era would be thought overprotective and intrusive today. Now that homeschooling is all the rage and the peer group is viewed with suspicion, I suspect that the influence of parents relative to peers will rise again, and Harris' conclusions may not be valid for the next generation of children.
|
