Okay, Jack, I read both articles. The first one is just fluff and not really worth discussing.
The second one has tons of references to different studies and it would take me months to go through all of them. If you want to research any specific one of these studied, let me know and we’ll have a look at it. I only read through it quickly but I do recognize a lot of the studies, many of which are discussed in Judith Rich Harris’s book, where she shows all the problems related to such findings.
I think your next step should be reading the short chapter in Pinker’s The Blank Slate on parenting, and if you find you want to learn more about the topic, go then directly to JRH’s book, The Nurture Assumption. And if you are intereted, I have a list of books you may want to read after that.
Okay, Jack, I read both articles. The first one is just fluff and not really worth discussing.
The second one has tons of references to different studies and it would take me months to go through all of them. If you want to research any specific one of these studied, let me know and we’ll have a look at it. I only read through it quickly but I do recognize a lot of the studies, many of which are discussed in Judith Rich Harris’s book, where she shows all the problems related to such findings.
I think your next step should be reading the short chapter in Pinker’s The Blank Slate on parenting, and if you find you want to learn more about the topic, go then directly to JRH’s book, The Nurture Assumption. And if you are intereted, I have a list of books you may want to read after that.
I haven’t gotten to that chapter yet but yes I am interested in reading Harris’s book and will look it up after Pinker, and I mean all of Pinker I can find. How about recommending 2 books for now; I’m backed up again. If you will, chose the ones you feel best address the issue. Looking up The Nurture Assumption after I post this.
Besides The Nurture Assumption—where Pinker got his information from and which he calls one of the importnant psychology books ever written—you should follow up with JRH’s second book, No Two Alike, where she takes a shot at explaining why identical twins are not identical and how (and why) kids get socialized by their peers. You won’t be able to put either of those books down. She is a very good writer.
Another interesting book is Bryan Caplan’s “Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids.” Here you have to be careful, though, because Caplan is a Libertarian and some of the stuff he says in his book may result in a high blood pressure, but the data in his books are worth looking into.
But “personality” isn’t the same as “behavior”. We’ve discussed this at length several times in the past.
Behaviour is what personality does. A person with violent personality behaves violently…
But even Pinker suggests that the brain has “different modules” and that some can over-ride inherent predispositions
established by one’s other “modules”. IOW, a person that has inherited a tendency to be violent is not necessarily doomed to become a violent person.
How in the world do you label a violent person as violent, if that person doesn’t behave violently? You might as well say a person X has IQ of 160 but doesn’t know that 1+1=2, or that person Y is a neurotic but always keeps his cool.
I see your point. But there are personlity tests such as the MMPI that can show tendencies that don’t necessarily have to be acted out. (Just as a person with a potential IQ of 160, who was raised by and lived with wolves, all of his life, might never learn math.)
[
Consideration of neither environmental issues nor genetic issues should be thrown out completely, except in those rare instances that we know that one or the other is 100% in play in the development of a particular skill/trait…
Of course this is not the end of the world, but if it’s impossible for some kids to be molded into the next Ghandi, then no amount of good parenting will help.
The next budding Charles Manson will not be the next Ghandi. I think that’s safe to say. But he doesn’t have to be the next Charles Manson, either.
But “personality” isn’t the same as “behavior”. We’ve discussed this at length several times in the past.
Behaviour is what personality does. A person with violent personality behaves violently…
But even Pinker suggests that the brain has “different modules” and that some can over-ride inherent predispositions
established by one’s other “modules”. IOW, a person that has inherited a tendency to be violent is not necessarily doomed to become a violent person.
How in the world do you label a violent person as violent, if that person doesn’t behave violently? You might as well say a person X has IQ of 160 but doesn’t know that 1+1=2, or that person Y is a neurotic but always keeps his cool.
I see your point. But there are personlity tests such as the MMPI that can show tendencies that don’t necessarily have to be acted out. (Just as a person with a potential IQ of 160, who was raised by and lived with wolves, all of his life, might never learn math.)
Well, yes. It might be a good idea to teach the potential parents not to use wolves as babysitters. Look, I obviously agree that in extreme cases—which, btw, would include most of the third world countries where kids are hungry, sick, get raped on daily basis, etc.—children may not develop properly no matter how gifted they may be. But that’s not what we are talking about. Once you provide the children with the basics, such as food, shelter and interaction with other kids, there is really not much more you can do to affect how they will turn out. Because if there was anything else that could be done, the studies would show it. And they don’t.
But “personality” isn’t the same as “behavior”. We’ve discussed this at length several times in the past.
Behaviour is what personality does. A person with violent personality behaves violently…
But even Pinker suggests that the brain has “different modules” and that some can over-ride inherent predispositions
established by one’s other “modules”. IOW, a person that has inherited a tendency to be violent is not necessarily doomed to become a violent person.
How in the world do you label a violent person as violent, if that person doesn’t behave violently? You might as well say a person X has IQ of 160 but doesn’t know that 1+1=2, or that person Y is a neurotic but always keeps his cool.
I see your point. But there are personlity tests such as the MMPI that can show tendencies that don’t necessarily have to be acted out. (Just as a person with a potential IQ of 160, who was raised by and lived with wolves, all of his life, might never learn math.)
Well, yes. It might be a good idea to teach the potential parents not to use wolves as babysitters. Look, I obviously agree that in extreme cases—which, btw, would include most of the third world countries where kids are hungry, sick, get raped on daily basis, etc.—children may not develop properly no matter how gifted they may be. But that’s not what we are talking about. Once you provide the children with the basics, such as food, shelter and interaction with other kids, there is really not much more you can do to affect how they will turn out. Because if there was anything else that could be done, the studies would show it. And they don’t.
Ah, but the extremes point out the continuum. You seem to agree that parents should know the basics of providing food, shelter and interaction with other kids. So I suppose you would be in agreement that parents who don’t know those basics, may have children who could benefit from their parents being educated in such.
I submit that beyond that, there are a subset of parents who, folowing your prescription would not interact with their infants/toddlers beyond the point of providing for their food, and shelter. In the Romanian orphanages, (there are plenty of other examples), the infants were given the basics of food and shelter. It wasn’t enough. I submit that some parents need to be educated in the basics of interacting with their babies. Because if they don’t, their child’s basic social development will likely be stunted to the point that when it is time for him/her to interact with peers, he/she won’t be able to interact with typically functioning peers. Although, the Crips or the Bloods, or the Goths might take them in. Or maybe they won’t even be functional enough for those peer groups. Maybe they will be a client in the local support system for children with intellectual disabilities.
Posted: 04 November 2012 07:45 AM [ Report ] [ Ignore ] [ # 108 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts: 8269
Joined 2006-08-29
Besides The Nurture Assumption—where Pinker got his information from and which he calls one of the importnant psychology books ever written—you should follow up with JRH’s second book, No Two Alike, where she takes a shot at explaining why identical twins are not identical and how (and why) kids get socialized by their peers. You won’t be able to put either of those books down. She is a very good writer.
Another interesting book is Bryan Caplan’s “Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids.” Here you have to be careful, though, because Caplan is a Libertarian and some of the stuff he says in his book may result in a high blood pressure, but the data in his books are worth looking into.
Thanks George, I’ve already bought the Harris book on Nurture and will follow up with the other one. Hmmm, on the Caplan book, gotta watch the blood pressure! I’ll read the review first.
The kids in the Romanian orphanage did get shelter and food, but they didn’t get to interact with other children—or anybody else. They spent most of the time in their cribs, left by themselves. Look it up.
Once again, you are wrong to assume that parents need to be taught how to interact with their kids since the studies show that parents have no influence in that domain. Sorry, but you are completely wrong on this.
And for the last time, regarding your first paragraph of your previous post, if you think you need to teach parents that they have to feed their kids and not keeping them locked in the basement, by all means, go ahead.
And for the last time, regarding your first paragraph of your previous post, if you think you need to teach parents that they have to feed their kids and not keeping them locked in the basement, by all means, go ahead.
I’ll give you credit for this, because even first time parents in the wild, know that they must feed their young and nobody taught them. I think this is a given for almost any parent. There are some exceptions, in which a mentally ill parent of any mammalian species will eat/abuse their young who are not dead, but they are, as I said, mentally ill. We had a problem with one cat who ate her babies as they were born and had to rescue them quickly. Nothing wrong the babies, even according to the vet, but we could not allow her to have kittens again because she ate babies. The other queens only ate the baby is it was dead and even then we tried not to allow that behaviour, by taking the dead from them. They do this as a natural instinct, esp in the wild, because the dead can cause predators to attack. It is very unusual for a healthy mother to eat a healthy baby.
Even so, the healthy queens fed their babies immediately. So the idea of feeding children comes naturally, even to humans. It is a survival instinct.
Even so, the healthy queens fed their babies immediately. So the idea of feeding children comes naturally, even to humans. It is a survival instinct.
I’m afraid it is not always ‘natural’. Sometimes we have to intervene to help the parents with the bonding and feeding—and not necessarily with a preemie, and the parents are usually ‘normal’. 100 years ago, when you gave birth, you had a slew of relatives to help you. People having their first on the prairie without much help had a much higher child mortality rate than those in or close to a town or other farms where they could help each other learning how to nurse etc. Nursing a child does not always come naturally for the mother or the child, and when one of them can’t figure it out, and the other doesn’t learn, the infant died.
Of course this is not the end of the world, but if it’s impossible for some kids to be molded into the next Ghandi, then no amount of good parenting will help.
Society wouldn’t function if we were all Ghandis, but there is a huge span between Ghandi and Manson. Our objective is to allow our children to function in society, at the highest level possible, and have them leave the world a better place. Someone who has a low capacity for self control can be taught to better direct it, and learn to increase their level of self control. Biology/genetics is not destiny, it is a little more complicated than that.
Even so, the healthy queens fed their babies immediately. So the idea of feeding children comes naturally, even to humans. It is a survival instinct.
I’m afraid it is not always ‘natural’. Sometimes we have to intervene to help the parents with the bonding and feeding—and not necessarily with a preemie, and the parents are usually ‘normal’. 100 years ago, when you gave birth, you had a slew of relatives to help you. People having their first on the prairie without much help had a much higher child mortality rate than those in or close to a town or other farms where they could help each other learning how to nurse etc. Nursing a child does not always come naturally for the mother or the child, and when one of them can’t figure it out, and the other doesn’t learn, the infant died.
You make what some mama cats and dogs do after birth sound hard, while they make it look easy.
It looks like this discussion has turned to the psychological aspects of human behavior as opposed to the genetic propensity governing human behavior and this is where I’m running a foul of genetically predetermined behavior. We were students of Maslow in the 60’s and were taught that his hierarchy of needs pyramid determined all human behavior. This theory is still taught the college of education today. That’s why I’m curious about Pinker and Harris’s contention. How does it fit with Maslow?
It looks like this discussion has turned to the psychological aspects of human behavior as opposed to the genetic propensity governing human behavior and this is where I’m running a foul of genetically predetermined behavior. We were students of Maslow in the 60’s and were taught that his hierarchy of needs pyramid determined all human behavior. This theory is still taught the college of education today. That’s why I’m curious about Pinker and Harris’s contention. How does it fit with Maslow?
I’ll give you credit for this, because even first time parents in the wild, know that they must feed their young and nobody taught them. I think this is a given for almost any parent. There are some exceptions, in which a mentally ill parent of any mammalian species will eat/abuse their young who are not dead, but they are, as I said, mentally ill. We had a problem with one cat who ate her babies as they were born and had to rescue them quickly. Nothing wrong the babies, even according to the vet, but we could not allow her to have kittens again because she ate babies. The other queens only ate the baby is it was dead and even then we tried not to allow that behaviour, by taking the dead from them. They do this as a natural instinct, esp in the wild, because the dead can cause predators to attack. It is very unusual for a healthy mother to eat a healthy baby.
