The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do, Revised and Updated

When there are only very small differences between families and styles of nurture between similiar parents all living on Oak Street, USA, similiar parents, similiar values, similiar peers, similiar neighborhood, almost by definition the differences between the children are going to be mainly attributed to the significant differences that do exist. That would be genetic differences between the children.The only factor where there are signicant differences in this example.The less variance there is between families in nurturing behavior, the statistical analysis will show that more of the variance in the children's behavior is attributed to factors other than parental nurturing behavior. The more variance there is between families in their nurturing behavior, the more important will be that nurturing variance in explaining the behavior of the children.That does not mean necessarily that significant differences in nurturing, where they actually exist between families, would not be quite important.On the other hand, if there are significant differences between different families, their styles of nurture, location, neighborhood, peer groups, etc., more of the differences between the children should be found to be attributed to these differences between the families and the environment outside the home. Less of the differences between the children would then be attributed to genetic differences between the children.Similiar families living in the same neighborhood are likely to have fairly similiar peer groups, and less of the differences between the children would be attributed to differences in their peer groups.Where there are very dissimiliar families living in the same neighborhood, very dissimiliar values and styles of nurture, more of the differences in the children are likely to be attributed to the differences in the families themselves, since the neighborhood is the same.Where there is a biological child living in the same family as an adopted child, the genetic differences between them would be greater than with 2 biological children living in the same family, and genetic differences will be more important in their behavior, and therefore these parents will be more impressed with the importance of genetics vs. parental nurturing, than would be the case if the parents had 2 or more biolobical children and no adopted children.Where, on the other hand, 2 or more biological siblings are living in the same family, the genetic differences will be less than if one were adopted. Therefore, in this case parents will be less impressed with the importance of genetics as a determinant of the child's behavior than in the case of one biological child and one adopted child.I think that to some extent this is what the author is picking up on.The author had a biological daughter and an adopted daughter, and she was impressed with the relative importance of their genetic differences in determining their behavior, even from infancy.Other parents, with two or more biological children would not be quite so impressed with the importance of their genetic differences in determining their behavior, simply because their biological children would be more genetically similiar than would be the case if they both didn't have the same parents. So when there is a greater variance of the genes, the genes are clearly more important than nurturing, as compared to when the variance of genetics is less in biological siblings.Making inferences with respect to all biological siblings based on one's own experience with siblings not biologically closely related, can be misleading as a generalization.In summary, where one factor is highly variable between families and between children, that factor will be more important. In instances where that variable does not change very much between families and children, its variability will be found to be of little importance statistically.Also, we need to ask ourselves, for those who believe in evolution, as the author does, why would parents normally be so concerned about our children if it were true that parental concern and nurture made little diference in the outcomes of how the children grow up?That is pretty strong evolutionary evidence that how we treat our children makes a significant difference, if not, it would be an awful waste of time and energy for parents to be so nurturing to their children.Why would parents evolve to behave in so an irrational way as to actually spend all that time and energy nurturing our children, if it made little difference in their behavior and outcomes? It seems unlikely.What survival value would it have? Why would we have evolved that way?In fact if nurturing made little difference in outcomes, the children whose parents wasted a lot of time and energy in nurturing their children would have less of a chance of surviving than the children of those parents who did not waste their time and energy in the futile activities of nurturing our children, if nurturing made little difference, nurturing is a waste of time and energy from the point of view of evolutionary biology.Therefore, since in fact most of us do spend a lot of time and energy nurturing our children, it seems highly unlikely, in evolutionary terms, that it would make no difference to the children in helping them survive and reproduce.Something is wrong here with what the author is saying.I don't know whether she has given enough thought and weight to the evolutionary evidence that nurturing behavior makes a difference.Evolutionary evidence is actually strongly in favor of the theory that spending the time and energy in nurturing our children makes a significant difference in our children's outcomes.And why would we evolve, most of us, to so greatly enjoy nurturing our children, if it did not increase the chances of the children surviving and reproducing themselves? That is counterintutitive.Therefore, I would say the evolutionary evidence is very strongly in favor of the theory that parental nurturing of children is actually of very significant importance in determing outcomes, although it may be difficult to show that result statistically where the families being studied are very similiar in their nurturing behavior. When there is little variance between the families in nurturing, small variances in nurturing behavior are not statistically significant. That does not mean that large variances between different families nurturing patterns would not make a significant difference in their children's behavior.Sometimes "statistical significance" and actual significance are very different things.The book is an interesting read, extemely provocative, makes the reader think, and it is educational. For these reasons I rate the book 5 stars, because it provokes the reader into thinking about the most important issues of our lives.Readers who are experienced parents and grandparents will not be shocked or scandalized by the author's findings that genetics makes an important difference, and the children's behavior is also highly influenced by their peer groups, as well as parental nurturing.Most of us grandparents know from our personal experience that all of these things are important, nurturing at home, genetic differences, and the environment outside of the home.The author's general contention that nurturing at home is not very significant is not highly plausible from an evolutionary point of view, but her view and the statistical evidence she presents is food for thought. It makes us think, and that is a good thing. An interesting read.

A child's peers have more influence on a child's self-esteem and eventual success in life than a child's parents do.Don't believe it? I didn't either - until I read this book, which made me consider the possibility seriously.The author is a former writer of child psychology textbooks. The book reports the surprising facts and research that the author discovered in the course of her work that led her to the above conclusion, which she substantiates thoroughly. The book is also very well-written, and interesting to read. The real-life examples of children who had problems that originated with their peer group, and not with themselves, and the simple changes that these children's parents made in their environments to change their peer group, and which radically changed their lives for the better, were remarkable.While I initially scoffed at its counter-intuitive premise, this book may have been the best book on child psychology that I read during my graduate studies at Columbia University. It contained well-substantiated, important information that most people don't know, in a very entertaining read. At a time when parents invest so much time and energy in their decisions with respect to their children, this information could be invaluable by helping parents recognize when a problem is not with their child, or in their home, but in their child's peer environment, and what they can do to fix it.

The Nurture Assumption is a great book. Unfortunately, it is lost on many readers who don't read closely or misunderstand Harris. A number of reviewers here bring up points that Harris addresses in her book if the reviewers would read more thoroughly. There are also a number of reviewers who think that because she discusses only a handful of studies in her book that her theory is based on anecdotes or thin evidence. Harris is aware of a wide swath of research, but her book is meant for public consumption, so the argument is based on a lot of knowledge, but the book is written to illustrate her ideas.A big problem--and this is partly Harris' fault for not explaining thoroughly--is that many readers seem not to understand the field she is addressing, which is personality development. Reviewers who say that children must "learn things" from their parents aren't understanding Harris because she is talking about a specific type of development and not general learning of "things". Of course children learn things from their parents. Harris never suggests otherwise.Many negative reviewers never engage with Harris theory of mind, which underlies her developmental theory. Is the child's brain's goal to categorize itself in a group/social context? If so, why would children identify with and be influenced by their parents? Harris' contention that a child's goal is to be a successful child and not a successful adult is key to her theory, and makes a lot of sense. Critical reviewers seem to miss it entirely, though.Finally, the problem of separating environmental effects of child rearing from genetic effects plagues many people. A lot of negative reviewers and people I have spoken with cite "evidence" of parental effects that only show that children and parents are similar, which could just be genetics. This is really important, which is why Harris spends so much time talking about it and why she rejects so much research in the field of child development. Unfortunately, many people don't use their critical faculties and continue to make the mistake even after reading a whole book designed to correct it.I give only 4 stars because I don't think Harris has done an outstanding job of making her ideas clear to the public and because she doesn't give adequate attention to brain studies. Her writing is very accessible, but not really clear for people outside the social sciences. As to what the evidence from brain studies indicates, if it exists, I wouldn't know from her book.

What a captivating perspective of the development of human beings.

Personally I don’t endorse some conclusions of the book but I consider it paramount to understand children development.

As described. Good quality. speedy delivery, enjoyed reading it Happy with product

Voici un des meilleurs livres de psychologie de l'enfant, d'autant plus qu'il réfute les croyances sur l'influence du comportement parental (nurture). C'est un des points les plus importants de l'idéologie des psy, et qui imprègne toute la conception contemporaine de l'éducation, que c'est le comportement des parents qui est le facteur le plus important pour l'avenir de l'enfant. Judith Rich Harris était auteur de livres sur la psychologie de l'enfance, c'est ainsi qu'elle a passé en revue de façon critique les études qui avaient été faites sur le sujet. Cela l'a amené à progressivement douter de ce qu'elle défendait avant dans ses livres. Ainsi elle a pu trouver que l'influence des pairs est plus importante que celle des parents, et que l'impact des parents est surtout génétique avant d’être environnementale. En synthèse, la variance attribué aux gènes est environ 45%, celle des pairs 50% et celle du comportement des parents 5%. Harris passe en revue les études, notamment de génétique des populations qui montrent cela et l'explique par la pression évolutionniste. Ceci dit, ça ne veut pas dire que les parents n'ont pas d'importance, bien entendu ils ont, mais souvent cela fait moins de différence qu'on croit. Cet ouvrage a été traduit en français sous le titre "Pourquoi nos enfants deviennent ce qu'ils sont" en Pocket

If you like Steven Pinker and generally try to avoid the pseudo-scientific blah other authors waste pages with, this is a great deal. Harris is a brilliant writer with a healthy brain and scientific vigor you will not find very often. Recommended wholeheartedly.