Judith Rich Harris (1938–2018)
Author of The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do
About the Author
Judith Rich Harris was born in Brooklyn, New York on February 10, 1938. She received a bachelor's degree in psychology from Brandeis University in 1959 and a master's in psychology from Harvard University in 1961. She was dismissed from the doctoral program at Harvard. She worked briefly as a show more teaching assistant at M.I.T. and as a research assistant at the University of Pennsylvania. She later worked as a research assistant for Bell Labs. Harris suffered from a chronic autoimmune disorder. Eventually the severity of her illness kept her housebound and she became a textbook writer. While writing college textbooks on child development, she realized she didn't believe what she was telling readers about why children turn out the way they do. She believed that children are influenced more by their genes and peers than by their parents. She wrote her theory up for an academic journal and won a prize from the American Psychological Association. She wrote books on the subject including The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do and No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality. She died on December 29, 2018 at the age of 80. (Bowker Author Biography) show less
Image credit: via Goodreads
Works by Judith Rich Harris
Associated Works
You Are Being Lied To: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes, and Cultural Myths (2001) — Contributor, some editions — 739 copies, 4 reviews
What Is Your Dangerous Idea? Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable (2007) — Contributor — 668 copies, 8 reviews
The Next Fifty Years: Science in the First Half of the Twenty-first Century (2002) — Contributor — 411 copies, 10 reviews
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Birthdate
- 1938-02-10
- Date of death
- 2018-12-30
- Gender
- female
- Education
- University of Arizona
Brandeis University
Harvard University - Occupations
- psychologist
- Nationality
- USA
- Places of residence
- Tucson, Arizona, USA
- Associated Place (for map)
- Arizona, USA
Members
Reviews
I was moved to pick up this book because Steven Pinker mentioned it with fulsome praise in The Blank Slate. Author Judith Rich Harris describes herself as “an unemployed writer of college textbooks” who was “kicked out of Harvard without a PhD.” Thus, for someone with marginal academic credentials her theory of child development is audacious: that part of children’s personality that is not explained by heredity (and the idea that heredity has anything to do with personality is also show more still heretical) is formed by the child’s peer group(s), not parents. She calls this “group socialization theory”.
I have to say I find this idea appealing. I’m not a parent, but I am an offspring; my memories of my childhood and adolescent years certainly seem to confirm that my behavior was much more intended to establish status in my group rather than please my parents. Just because I do find it appealing, I have to be a little careful about giving it a glowing endorsement.
Harris’ writing style is pleasantly readable, certainly not the kind of prose you usually get from psychologists. That, again, might be a little handicap to her acceptance by academics; although The Nurture Assumption is heavily referenced, Harris doesn’t use footnotes; instead the references are linked to page numbers. While this certainly makes the book easy to follow, it also makes it hard to look up the sources for Harris’ statements.
I also find the book could have used tighter editing. Harris’ argument is simple enough:
* Conventional wisdom holds that the dominant influence on child development is parental upbringing.
* However, studies that purport to confirm this are flawed; they fail to correct for heredity; or they fail to establish the direction of causality (are children well-behaved because they receive a lot of hugs, or do children receive a lot of hugs because they are well-behaved); or they fail to appreciate that behavior outside the home can be different from inside the home; or they’re just plain badly done.
* Therefore, “group socialization theory” is a viable alternative, and
* Various adequately controlled studies support “group socialization theory”
The problem is Harris doesn’t lay out her arguments that way; instead she wanders all over. The Nurture Assumption is sort of an anecdotal meta-analysis, with Harris plucking various studies out of the air that support her position and criticizing (with considerably more restraint than many of her critics) those that don’t.
There are, admittedly, a lot of interesting anecdotes to tell: the boy who was dumped for five years on a Tibetan monastery by his parents and who thus grew up “a white Tibetan”; various comments on language development (including the claim that bilingual education will not work); various comments on the way children are raised in different cultures (Mayans are horrified that Americans don’t take their babies to bed with them; there is no “adolescence” among the Yanomamö: you go from being a child to an adult at 14), and considerable personal detail on Harris’ own children.
Harris’ also provides a lot to offend both the left and the right. The left will be annoyed by her contention that there really is a difference between boys and girls personality and socialization, and that heredity has a major influence on personality; the right will be upset to find that there is no discernable difference between children with same-sex parents and those with conventional families, and that once you allow for economics there’s no difference between children of single moms and those with two parents.
The only place where Harris has difficulty making “group socialization theory” fit the data is with divorced families, where studies do suggest children have problems. Harris dances around this; she suggests, again, that causality has been reversed (do children grow up badly when their parents divorce, or do bad children make parents divorce); she argues that perhaps researchers fail to account for the change in peer-group status caused by divorce; or maybe it has to do with the disruption caused by moving after a divorce and thus having to merge with a different peer group. There’s a couple of things that I’d like to investigate more; apparently divorce remains a problem for kids even if the mom remarries, but families where the mom is a widow rather than a divorcee don’t have similar difficulties.
The Nurture Assumption does offer some advice (Harris is tentative about offering it). Parents have some influence in choosing their offspring’s peer group by living in a “good” neighborhood with “good” schools (and thus, a “good” peer group). Parents should also accept that it’s a good idea to see that children “fit in” with their peer group in terms of clothing and behavior; she doesn’t go so far as to say that if you’re ten-year-old wants to dress like a hooker, you should let her, but that’s the implication. (I have a personal anecdote about this; when I was in second grade Mom bought me pants with vertical black and white stripes. While I lacked the vocabulary and rhetorical skills to explain the problem, I was pretty sure I’d be the laughing stock of Madison Elementary if I wore those to school. Tears, screaming, and spanking ensued, but eventually Mom gave the pants away and I didn’t have to wear them).
Overall I have to rate The Nurture Assumption pretty highly. Even if “group socialization theory” is wrong or incomplete, there’s still at lot to think about and a lot more books to read. No problem there. show less
I have to say I find this idea appealing. I’m not a parent, but I am an offspring; my memories of my childhood and adolescent years certainly seem to confirm that my behavior was much more intended to establish status in my group rather than please my parents. Just because I do find it appealing, I have to be a little careful about giving it a glowing endorsement.
Harris’ writing style is pleasantly readable, certainly not the kind of prose you usually get from psychologists. That, again, might be a little handicap to her acceptance by academics; although The Nurture Assumption is heavily referenced, Harris doesn’t use footnotes; instead the references are linked to page numbers. While this certainly makes the book easy to follow, it also makes it hard to look up the sources for Harris’ statements.
I also find the book could have used tighter editing. Harris’ argument is simple enough:
* Conventional wisdom holds that the dominant influence on child development is parental upbringing.
* However, studies that purport to confirm this are flawed; they fail to correct for heredity; or they fail to establish the direction of causality (are children well-behaved because they receive a lot of hugs, or do children receive a lot of hugs because they are well-behaved); or they fail to appreciate that behavior outside the home can be different from inside the home; or they’re just plain badly done.
* Therefore, “group socialization theory” is a viable alternative, and
* Various adequately controlled studies support “group socialization theory”
The problem is Harris doesn’t lay out her arguments that way; instead she wanders all over. The Nurture Assumption is sort of an anecdotal meta-analysis, with Harris plucking various studies out of the air that support her position and criticizing (with considerably more restraint than many of her critics) those that don’t.
There are, admittedly, a lot of interesting anecdotes to tell: the boy who was dumped for five years on a Tibetan monastery by his parents and who thus grew up “a white Tibetan”; various comments on language development (including the claim that bilingual education will not work); various comments on the way children are raised in different cultures (Mayans are horrified that Americans don’t take their babies to bed with them; there is no “adolescence” among the Yanomamö: you go from being a child to an adult at 14), and considerable personal detail on Harris’ own children.
Harris’ also provides a lot to offend both the left and the right. The left will be annoyed by her contention that there really is a difference between boys and girls personality and socialization, and that heredity has a major influence on personality; the right will be upset to find that there is no discernable difference between children with same-sex parents and those with conventional families, and that once you allow for economics there’s no difference between children of single moms and those with two parents.
The only place where Harris has difficulty making “group socialization theory” fit the data is with divorced families, where studies do suggest children have problems. Harris dances around this; she suggests, again, that causality has been reversed (do children grow up badly when their parents divorce, or do bad children make parents divorce); she argues that perhaps researchers fail to account for the change in peer-group status caused by divorce; or maybe it has to do with the disruption caused by moving after a divorce and thus having to merge with a different peer group. There’s a couple of things that I’d like to investigate more; apparently divorce remains a problem for kids even if the mom remarries, but families where the mom is a widow rather than a divorcee don’t have similar difficulties.
The Nurture Assumption does offer some advice (Harris is tentative about offering it). Parents have some influence in choosing their offspring’s peer group by living in a “good” neighborhood with “good” schools (and thus, a “good” peer group). Parents should also accept that it’s a good idea to see that children “fit in” with their peer group in terms of clothing and behavior; she doesn’t go so far as to say that if you’re ten-year-old wants to dress like a hooker, you should let her, but that’s the implication. (I have a personal anecdote about this; when I was in second grade Mom bought me pants with vertical black and white stripes. While I lacked the vocabulary and rhetorical skills to explain the problem, I was pretty sure I’d be the laughing stock of Madison Elementary if I wore those to school. Tears, screaming, and spanking ensued, but eventually Mom gave the pants away and I didn’t have to wear them).
Overall I have to rate The Nurture Assumption pretty highly. Even if “group socialization theory” is wrong or incomplete, there’s still at lot to think about and a lot more books to read. No problem there. show less
The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do, Revised and Updated by Judith Rich Harris
This was a very interesting and pretty convincing scientific study of personality development. The author is not a clinical scientist, so she does not do any of her own studies, but she does quite interesting reinterpretations of other studies in order to demonstrate that peer group and genes have far more to do with how children turn out than parentlng style. The book is very easy to read. The author explains things clearly and is often quite funny.
I read the first edition. I did not know show more there was a revised edition until I saw the LT page. Three things I would like to see in a revised edition:
1. The increasing impact of the internet and social media on child socialization. Not just the negative, like cyberbullying, but the positive as well. There are many kinds of group formation and group socialization that occur only online now. Does that change the way we form our identities?
2. Whether our increasing tolerance of gender fluidity and nontraditional families is making a difference in how kids interpret gender. Harris notes that, as of 1998 when the edition I read was published, children were much more rigid/stereotyped about gender roles than the society at large. Just in the past 15 years, I feel that society at large has started to see gender as much more malleable--is any of that trickling down to kids?
3. Similar to #2, how demographic changes in the US may be making race a more fluid category and whether that has any effect on socialization. Harris notes that by the age of 3, children start to notice that people can be categorized by race, and eventually they self-categorize into peer groups of the same race. About a third of the kids in my son's daycare are mixed-race, which seems in line with recent demographic trends. These changes might pose a welcome challenge to traditional forms of race-based group formation.
I cannot speak to how this book is regarded in the scientific community, but I found it enjoyable and thought-provoking. I wish I had read it sooner in my career as a mother because it actually makes me feel more relaxed and confident about many areas of parenting. But even if you're not a parent, you are a child, and you can probably learn something about your own parents from reading this. show less
I read the first edition. I did not know show more there was a revised edition until I saw the LT page. Three things I would like to see in a revised edition:
1. The increasing impact of the internet and social media on child socialization. Not just the negative, like cyberbullying, but the positive as well. There are many kinds of group formation and group socialization that occur only online now. Does that change the way we form our identities?
2. Whether our increasing tolerance of gender fluidity and nontraditional families is making a difference in how kids interpret gender. Harris notes that, as of 1998 when the edition I read was published, children were much more rigid/stereotyped about gender roles than the society at large. Just in the past 15 years, I feel that society at large has started to see gender as much more malleable--is any of that trickling down to kids?
3. Similar to #2, how demographic changes in the US may be making race a more fluid category and whether that has any effect on socialization. Harris notes that by the age of 3, children start to notice that people can be categorized by race, and eventually they self-categorize into peer groups of the same race. About a third of the kids in my son's daycare are mixed-race, which seems in line with recent demographic trends. These changes might pose a welcome challenge to traditional forms of race-based group formation.
I cannot speak to how this book is regarded in the scientific community, but I found it enjoyable and thought-provoking. I wish I had read it sooner in my career as a mother because it actually makes me feel more relaxed and confident about many areas of parenting. But even if you're not a parent, you are a child, and you can probably learn something about your own parents from reading this. show less
Замисляли ли сте се, защо децата на емигранти в някоя страна, които са родени в нея, говорят местния език като местни, а не с тежкия акцент на родителите си? Та нали децата се научават да говорят от родителите си, затова е толкова важно още от бебета (и даже още от корема на show more майката) да им говорим, да им четем и всячески да общуваме с тях?
Отдавна е известно, че дебатът Nature/Nurture се решава грубо казано 50/50 - горе долу половината от това, което представлява човек му е вродено, а останалата половина се развива на база вроденото, но под влияние на "околната среда". Добре де, но какво точно е "околната среда"?
Общото мнение на всякакви психолози и експерти по гледане на деца е, че основната "среда" за развитието на децата са семейството и родителите им. Това се смята за безспорно и съществуват безброй книги с указания как точно да отглеждаме децата си така, че те да се развият както сме си наумили, че трябва. Дали обаче данните на изследванията подкрепят тази приета от всички теза?
На пръв поглед да - колкото книги за гледане на деца има, десет пъти по толкова са изследванията, на които съветите в тия книги са базирани. И всички тия изследвания сочат, че семейната среда е най-важното нещо за развитие на децата. Нима това не е очевидно?
За някои хора обаче, които обичат да си блъскат главите в стени, явно не е очевидно. Авторката на The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do сама е писала книги за възпитание на деца - докато не е забелязала, че нещо не се връзва. Затова е посветила десетилетие от живота си да изучи задълбочено изследванията по въпроса, да ги разгледа критично и да установи, че да - наистина нещо не се връзва.
За да не хлевоустя излишно ще кажа направо, че изводите и са доста любопитни - децата се учат основно от другите деца, а не от родителите си. От тях се учат да говорят, от тях се учат как да се държат, от тях се учат какво да обличат, дали да пушат, дали да учат или да пушат трева. Буквално "С какъвто се събереш - такъв ставаш."
Според Джудит Рич Харис влиянието на групата приятели и роднински деца, с които израства детето е от най-голямо значение (след вродените им способности и качества) за тяхното развитие и за това какви ще станат като личности. Разнородната група деца (представяй си нещо като "Синьо лято") е била основната среда за развитие на деца и тийнейджъри още от зората на човечеството насам.
Книгата е доста дълга, но изключително интересна и макар най-вероятно да наведе доста амбициозни родители към убийствени мисли, ще промени виждането ви за това какво ни е направило такива, каквито сме. show less
Отдавна е известно, че дебатът Nature/Nurture се решава грубо казано 50/50 - горе долу половината от това, което представлява човек му е вродено, а останалата половина се развива на база вроденото, но под влияние на "околната среда". Добре де, но какво точно е "околната среда"?
Общото мнение на всякакви психолози и експерти по гледане на деца е, че основната "среда" за развитието на децата са семейството и родителите им. Това се смята за безспорно и съществуват безброй книги с указания как точно да отглеждаме децата си така, че те да се развият както сме си наумили, че трябва. Дали обаче данните на изследванията подкрепят тази приета от всички теза?
На пръв поглед да - колкото книги за гледане на деца има, десет пъти по толкова са изследванията, на които съветите в тия книги са базирани. И всички тия изследвания сочат, че семейната среда е най-важното нещо за развитие на децата. Нима това не е очевидно?
За някои хора обаче, които обичат да си блъскат главите в стени, явно не е очевидно. Авторката на The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do сама е писала книги за възпитание на деца - докато не е забелязала, че нещо не се връзва. Затова е посветила десетилетие от живота си да изучи задълбочено изследванията по въпроса, да ги разгледа критично и да установи, че да - наистина нещо не се връзва.
За да не хлевоустя излишно ще кажа направо, че изводите и са доста любопитни - децата се учат основно от другите деца, а не от родителите си. От тях се учат да говорят, от тях се учат как да се държат, от тях се учат какво да обличат, дали да пушат, дали да учат или да пушат трева. Буквално "С какъвто се събереш - такъв ставаш."
Според Джудит Рич Харис влиянието на групата приятели и роднински деца, с които израства детето е от най-голямо значение (след вродените им способности и качества) за тяхното развитие и за това какви ще станат като личности. Разнородната група деца (представяй си нещо като "Синьо лято") е била основната среда за развитие на деца и тийнейджъри още от зората на човечеството насам.
Книгата е доста дълга, но изключително интересна и макар най-вероятно да наведе доста амбициозни родители към убийствени мисли, ще промени виждането ви за това какво ни е направило такива, каквито сме. show less
Judith Rich Harris lays out her argument for group socialization theory in this comprehensive study. Her wit and self-effacing attitude kept me engaged with the book and she takes great care to explain the missteps of other researchers who, despite having mounds of data, have confused correlation with causation. The Nurture Assumption tackles a widely held belief of parent's influence on their children and as such requires a systematic analysis of all the studies available. It's a rare book show more that can be such an enjoyable and informative read. show less
Lists
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 8
- Also by
- 3
- Members
- 877
- Popularity
- #29,203
- Rating
- 3.7
- Reviews
- 17
- ISBNs
- 39
- Languages
- 9
- Favorited
- 1