Once upon a time Judith Rich Harris wrote a book arguing that (genetics aside) parents have zero influence on the personalities, intelligence, and behavior of their children outside the home.
So far, no one has refuted her claim.
Yet many scientists remain convinced that “of course” parents are (environmentally) pivotal in this regard and although no peer-reviewed data supports this claim, it is only a matter of time before some does.
Question: which is the reasonable position to incline toward now?
I first read about Harris in Steven Pinker’s book “The Blank Slate.” Then I read Harris’s book “The Nurture Assumption” (which explains why siblings are so different) and more recently the follow-up “No Two Alike” (which answers critics of the first book before going on to develop its own thesis). Her case is solid, whereas counterclaimants rely on unsupported convictions and the promise of future data, which may never materialize.
Again, which is the more reasonable position to incline toward now?
I’m with Harris.
posted by:
|
Boca Raton
|
-
Re: Zero Parental Influence Vs Time Will Tell Otherwise
Sun, June 29, 2008 - 6:12 PMfrom what i see..
I believe todays "parents" are allowing society to raise their children... any parental influence to be had by the child in question is only reflected by the surroundings that the mother emulates whilst said child is at the grandparents (or neighbors house whatever is more effortless for "mom").
That being said, society has a greater influence.... I would tend to agree with Harris. -
-
Re: Zero Parental Influence Vs Time Will Tell Otherwise
Sun, June 29, 2008 - 9:59 PMFrom what I've seen most Parents are indeed more a tool of society then separate of it when raising their children... -
-
Re: Zero Parental Influence Vs Time Will Tell Otherwise
Thu, July 3, 2008 - 7:56 AMOne of Harris's main points in her book "The Nurture Assumption" is that while parents want kids to become successful adults, kids want to be successful *kids* and the measure of that is the view of *other kids*. (The reason parents worry about the influence of 'bad kids' is that they know that their years of hectoring and example can be overcome by a simple invitation from someone thought "cool." If partental influence were as strong as generally believed, parents wouldn't worry like this. Yet they do. And there's a good reason for it---kids find other kids more persuasive than they find adults!)
-
-
-
Re: Zero Parental Influence Vs Time Will Tell Otherwise
Thu, July 3, 2008 - 8:23 AMA parent has the power to fuck the kid or lock it in a closet for 18 years and make it feral, unable to speak and probably nukin futs.
A parent has the ability to make a kid fat, and then insecure from it.
The premise assumes a kind of standard upbringing..but it's the upbringing that parents have total control over. -
-
Re: Zero Parental Influence Vs Time Will Tell Otherwise
Sat, July 12, 2008 - 2:44 PM"Once upon a time Judith Rich Harris wrote a book arguing that (genetics aside) parents have zero influence..."
Anyone who made such argument would be a complete twat. Harris is no such twat, because this is misrepresentation of her argument.
-
-
Re: Zero Parental Influence Vs Time Will Tell Otherwise
Wed, July 16, 2008 - 7:44 AM>>>>>>>>Anyone who made such argument would be a complete twat. Harris is no such twat, because this is misrepresentation of her argument. <<<<<<<<
Not according to Harris. This *is* her representation of it in "What's Your Dangerous Idea?"
That's exactly what she said, zero non-genetic parental influence on the personalities, intelligence, or behavior of children outside the home.
She admits she thought she would have to back off this view after publishing "The Nurture Assumption," but none of the counterarguments carry credible weight.
-
-
-
Re: Zero Parental Influence Vs Time Will Tell Otherwise
Sat, July 12, 2008 - 3:18 PMthis reminds me of a discussion i had with friends about Cinéma vérité or *cinema of truth*.
humans are interesting creatures, put a camera in front of them and they behave *differently* than they would sans camera.
humans also behave differently when they are studied & children are incredibly perceptive.
how does one study children outside the home (without revealing the study) & without looking like a:
pervert, stalker or child molester.
of course, there's always Larry Clark www.imdb.com/name/nm0164187/
and we *all* know how realistic his films can be.
