http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/harris-nurture.html
I read most of this. I read the first half and then the last few paragraphs. It was kind of difficult to get through.
There weren't many specific points addressed, or at least not very clearly addressed, but the basis is as follows, from my understanding:
- common belief is that there is nature vs. Nurture paradigm
- nurture was synonymous with environment now and previously
- Sigmund Freud was flat out wrong
- studies done on children based on their environment are wrong, because you can't universalize their environment or their reaction or some strange logic like that
- nurture is not environment
So... I didn't really see any arguments within this. I mean, I did skip ahead, but it was just on and on and on with no substance.
One sentence was literally "the common man and the psychology professor agree, nurture is [important, its environment, whatever], but is it?
I dunno. I think its worth tearing apart.
