In her book, Judith Rich Harris challenges the notion that parents should receive all the credit when their children turn out well, or all the blame when they turn out badly. She argues that the “nurture assumption,” which suggests that the way parents raise their children is the primary factor in their development, is nothing more than a cultural myth. Harris’s book provides a new perspective on childhood that challenges our traditional beliefs about children and their parents.
Harris uses real-life examples to illustrate her argument that what children experience outside the home, particularly in the company of their peers, is the most important factor in their development. She suggests that it is not parents who socialize with their children, but rather the children themselves who socialize with each other. Harris uses insights from multiple fields, including psychology, sociology, anthropology, primatology, and evolutionary biology, to offer a fresh perspective on human development and behaviour.
Overall, Harris’ book challenges traditional assumptions about the role of parents in their children’s lives and provides a thought-provoking perspective on the factors that shape human development. Her arguments are presented with eloquence and humor, and offer a compelling case for rethinking our understanding of childhood and parenting.
Kuje jail attack: FG promotes officer for gallantry
Kuje jail attack: FG promotes officer for gallantry
The discovery
As a textbook author, Judith Harris made a startling discovery regarding the influence of childhood that shapes them in adulthood. So she stopped writing textbooks to write “The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do” in 1998 to inspire a thought-provoking discussion on how much influence, if any, parents have on their children.
This is what she wrote about that experience: “Fortunately, the metamorphosis came too late to permit me to go back to graduate school. And thus I escaped indoctrination. Whatever I learned about developmental psychology and social psychology, I learned on my own. I was an outsider looking in, and that has made all the difference. I did not buy
into the assumptions of the academic establishment. I was not indebted to their granting agencies. And, once I had given up writing textbooks, I was not required to perpetuate the status quo by teaching the received gospel to a bunch of credulous college students. I gave up writing textbooks because one day it suddenly occurred to me that many of the things I had been telling those credulous college students were wrong. Developmentalists who specialize in doing the kind of research I just described are called socialization researchers.”
The core message of the book.
“The Nurture Assumption” is a book by Judith Rich Harris that was published in 1998. The book challenges the traditional assumption that parents are the most important factor in shaping a child’s personality and behaviour.
One of the most important points in the book is that peers, rather than parents, have a greater influence on a child’s development. Harris argues that children learn more from their interactions with peers and the wider social environment than from the direct influence of their parents. Harris also suggests that genetic factors play a more significant role in shaping a child’s personality and behaviour than previously thought.
Harris’s book sparked controversy and debate in the field of child development and parenting, and it remains a thought-provoking and influential work in the field.
Evidence for the two claims
The author, Judith Rich Harris, uses a variety of evidence to support her claims in “The Nurture Assumption.” Here are some of the key pieces of evidence she cites:
Influence of peers: Harris cites studies that show that children’s behaviour and attitudes are more strongly influenced by their peers than by their parents. For example, studies have found that children’s academic achievement is more strongly correlated with the achievement of their classmates than with their parent’s education level. Harris also cites studies that show that children’s personality traits are more similar to those of their friends than to those of their parents.
Genetic factors: Harris argues that genetic factors play a larger role in shaping a child’s personality and behaviour than environmental factors, including parenting. She cites studies of identical twins raised in different environments, which show that they are more similar to each other in terms of personality traits than to their non-twin siblings. Harris also cites studies that show that adopted children are more similar to their biological parents than to their adoptive parents in terms of personality traits.
The reason for the impact of genes on personality is evident when we examine genetically identical twins. Despite being raised in completely different environments, multiple studies have shown that twins tend to develop remarkably similar traits. One example is the Minnesota Twin Family Study, which investigated pairs of twins like the two Jims, who were genetically identical but raised in different environments. When they met later in life, they had many shared interests and even named their sons with similar names. This provides compelling evidence that genes do influence our development.
However, it’s worth noting that the similarities between twins exist regardless of whether they were raised together or not. Therefore, growing up in the same home doesn’t necessarily produce more similarities. This is because the twins’ genetic makeup, rather than their upbringing, determines their traits. For instance, the same Minnesota study found that the personality traits of identical twins raised in the same house only correlated by 50 per cent, meaning that they were no more similar than twins raised apart.
This suggests that parents have little control over how their children turn out, which may seem contradictory since children’s character is often thought to be influenced by their parent’s behaviour.
Overall, Harris argues that the evidence suggests that parents have less influence on their children’s development than previously believed and that children’s peers and genetic factors are more important. Her claims have been the subject of much debate and criticism in the field of child development.
To be continued.
Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.
