Kevin Keel Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 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. 1
Canoe_Captain Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 Thank you posting the first chapter of "The Nurture Assumption". This book published in 1998 with a foreword by Steven Pinker and a 1999 Pulitzer Prize finalist seems to be some long time popular book of Developmental Psychology, that I did not know before. I researched for only 10 minutes, but it seems the book's main message seems to be that that parents only are a small part of the nurture aspect that influences a child. Analysing the book's arguments would be helpful since its conclusions are probably deeply embedded by now in the mind of many interested people and parents.
webdever Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 There was a brief discussion of the book on the boards here a while ago, here is the link if you're interested: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/13708-the-nurture-assumption/ 1
Recommended Posts