In 1998, a kindly grandmother living in New Jersey wrote a book
about child-rearing that created quite a stir. In "The Nurture
Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do," Judith Rich Harris
had the temerity to suggest that the most important influences on
children were not their parents but genes and peers. This was heresy,
and critics immediately attacked the book in reviews with titles such
as "Parents Don’t Count!"Nonetheless, Mrs. Harris had made a very convincing argument, and
she stuck to her guns. Now, with "No Two Alike" (W.W. Norton &
Company, 352 pages, $26.95), she has expanded her thesis and has
attempted to formulate a new theory of personality formation – the
first, in fact, since Sigmund Freud. More specifically, she has
attempted to solve the mystery of why people are different…Basically, Mrs. Harris believes there are three "perpetrators" at
work in the formation of the human personality, each associated with an
aspect of a modular brain. One is the "relationship system," designed
to maintain favorable relationships in society. Another is the
"Socialization System," where the goal is to be a member of a group.
The third is the "Status System," where we compete with our peers for
status.The interplay among these systems accounts for the emergence of
differences between individuals. So it is that even identical twins
develop different personalities because the members of their community
see them as unique individuals and treat them differently. Their
individual striving for status propels them into different modes of
competing, which in turn differentiates their personalities.
Here is more information, I am excited. See also Alex’s related posts here and here. Have you noticed the absence of book reviews on MR lately? It is about time for the publishing industry to awake from its seasonal business cycles slumber…
Why are people so hostile to Harris’ Nurture Assumption thesis? Whenever I explain it, it’s not long before invective is cast at me. But like you Tyler, I’m excited for this new book…
This sounds very interesting and intuitively correct to me.
Parents do find it hard to believe, and that is probably a good thing. Theincentive of making their child better in the futire translates into happier times for the child in the present.
Many, many years ago, when I was doing research on the economics of adoption, I read (though I cannot remember the source, unfortunately) that parents of adopted children believe much more strongly in the importance of genes than do parents of children born to them.
I’m not usually overly PC but it seems odd to characterize her as a grandmother rather than as a researcher.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/harris.html
Regarding the earlier post on the income difference between adopted and non-adopted children.
Has anyone considered that the genetic factor that high income parents pass onto their children is being tall? Studies have shown that height is a factor for income. According to the below study, each extra inch of height increases your annual income by $789.
http://news.ufl.edu/2003/10/16/heightsalary/
For those who might be interested, we interviewed Judith Rich Harris here: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/01/10-questions-for-judith-rich-harris.php
Tyler, psych was one of my undergrad degrees when I doubled. I’m pretty sure a whole host of people have taken cracks at personality theories since Freud. I’m not in the field nor driven to defend it. But please don’t hold the whole field responsible for the fact that people are so obsessed by sex that they can only remember weird old Sigmund.
Footnotes to Freud is just an old canard.
toshiba 4000 battery
Comments on this entry are closed.