willhud9 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Columbus wrote:

I am a family therapist, and by far the greatest influence on a child's development is the parents and immediate social network.

When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Tom

So 100 years of research is wrong? I'll keep my thoughts to myself. This is just a trolling statement. Einstein might be wrong, some claim he is. Evolution might be wrong, and some claim it is. Hammer/nail I guess?

No 100 years of research is not wrong...when you can provide academic material to back it up.

Oldskeptic is in the same position. You both made positive claims and neither of you actually provided citation for said claims.
Just because you happen to be a family therapist does not mean your claim is suddenly validated as being true or more factually correct than others. (If memory serves me correct Oldskeptic is also in the field of psychology).

But whining and hiding behind your position as a therapist is not logical, nor does it contribute anything to the discussion. Columbus had an issue with your claim. All you have to do is provide source material for said claim...and as a family therapist I would hope you'd be able to access journals and research that back up your claims especially for parents that want to read up on said material.

Not everything is trolling.

crank wrote:I seem to remember, read that I can't cite, a lot of stuff about a whole rash of twin studies, the kind that found lots of separated twins, showing peers were more important in many if not most things, like accent, morals, etc. I'm not going to try to resurrect what I half remember, but this was someone like Pinker citing a large number of studies.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Teague wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

I get it, nature over nurture, right? I'm glad that you have settled the debate over the two that has been going on for at least 300 years. Sorry to burst your bubble but research has shown that the biggest influence on modern young people regarding their values and behavior during their formative years is not parents, it's not brothers or sisters, and it's not family elders as behaviorists have wanted to believe and make everyone believe for years. And it's not genetics either. The surprise really isn't that surprising when you think back to your younger days. The largest influence on young people is other young people - their peers, their friends, their gang or whatever you want to call them. It's the other kids that they hang with. The group of other humans that they have to compete with for acceptance, a place in the social hierarchy.

When Dilulio wrote: " A youth who repeatedly commits violent crimes as a result of being raised without morals." it doesn't necessarily mean that his or her parents, older brothers or sisters, or elders never tried to teach them "morals". It means what it says, "raised without morals" and if the largest influence on a young person's life is a group of other young people that have inherited their amorality and lack of empathy from other young people a bit older and looked up to they are going to lack and or ignore the morality taught at home or any other place.

This is not say that there is no innate sense of empathy or that empathy isn't heritable. It means that an innate empathy can be overridden by environmental factors.

To serve as an example overriding innate empathy I'll cite loving and kind mothers and fathers, loving and kind grandmothers and grandfathers, and other "good" people known for their fine morals and empathy having their smiling faces photographed while standing in the background with the corpse of another human hanging from a tree or burning on a pyre.

Old skeptic, you are flat out wrong on this. I am a family therapist, and by far the greatest influence on a child's development is the parents and immediate social network. Peers are influential after the majority of brain development and socialization has already passed. There was a researcher a few years ago who tried to pistulate that peers are more important than parents, but her work was deep,y flawed, overlooking many very well established principles in a child's development.

The woman's name you can't come up with is Judith Harris, she has a masters in psychology and has been doing research in cognitive development since 1977, and has co-authored two text books on child development. Her article, published in Psychological Review, that I based my explanation on was awarded a George A. Miller Prize in Cognitive Neuroscience by the American Psychological Association in 1995.

The book based on Harris' new theory, The Nurture Assumption was published with 1998 with a forward by Steven Pinker, another George A. Miller Prize in Cognitive Neuroscience in 2010, and was a Pulitzer Prize finalist for general non-fiction in 1999.

Harris did more than just try to postulate, she fleshed out her new theory and had it published in the most respected peer reviewed psychology journal in the US.

In a nut shell Harris' conclusions were that parents teach children how to behave at home. As Steven Pinker put it in How the Mind Works "children everywhere are socialized by their peer group, not by their parents. At all ages children
join various play groups, circles, gangs, packs, cliques, and salons, and they jockey for status within them." Or in Harris' own words peers teach children and young adults how to behave outside of the home.

Certainly parents contribute to how children and young people behave outside of the home, as do genetics, family, and other social networks, but it should be easy to understand that the world outside of the home and family is where they learn how to deal with/behave in the world outside of the home.

It also an observable that people in general, and not just children and young adults often behave differently in different environments but especially adolescents and young adults: They often behave differently at school than they do at home, or at work, or in church, or on the streets. Even behave differently in one group of peers as opposed to another.

What started this particular tangent in this thread was this from Macdoc concerning the term "superpredator" coined by John DiIulio a professor of political science. Macdoc frowns on a professor of political science doing psychology and sociology, then contends that, ethics are innate except for some womb induced or genetically caused anomalies.

And while I agree that there are some womb induced and genetically caused anomalies behind violent behavior it's far too simple, actually outlandish, to think that they are a main cause let alone the only cause of violent behavior in youths.

So remember that what was being discussed was not how youths act at home, or in a classroom, or at grandma's house, or in church. We are talking about youths in their own "environment" separate from the others where the roll models may be slightly older peers and or peers higher up in the pecking order.

Something to consider is that, not always but very often, when a young person commits a violent act like rape or assault or murder the reaction of family, neighbors, and other adults that know them is surprise and disbelief. We hear things like, "I can't believe it, he/she was/is such a nice polite young woman/man." Using Harris' theory, as accepted by Pinker and others in the field, there are good explanations of how the acts of the violence committed by the youth can be squared with the nice polite young man/woman of the experiences of people outside of the peer group/gang/clique.

Something else to consider is how often and quick parents themselves are to blame change in behavior of their children for the worse on "bad influences" in the form of new friends/peers. Yet parents are unlikely to give the same degree of credit for changes in behavior for the better to new peers/friends, even though in deeds and conversation they demonstrate that they do place a great deal of importance on peers/friends by wanting to raise there children in "good" neighborhoods, send them to "good" schools. Parents, and some psychologists and sociologists, are reluctant, even venomously opposed, to Harris and her theory while at the same time admitting that the environment is a very large factor in the behavior of children, adolescents, and young adults by talking about the importance of such things as "good" neighborhoods and "good" schools.

Harris' new theory isn't really all that new. It's just that she spoke what an awful lot of people did/do not want to hear or face. And like some Christians that want to justify their god thru morals consequentialism where by if their god doesn't exist to be the source of their morals there is no reason to be moral. Some parents, and some psychologists and sociologists, resit Harris' theory because they think Harris is delivering a message that good parenting is futile in the light of larger roles that genetics and peer groups play. There is no such message. Nowhere in Harris' or Pinker's or anyone else's writings on the subject is there even a hint that good parenting is useless or not valuable. It's just that the utility and value may not be where most parents, and some psychologists and sociologists believe them to be.

If a good environment is important then the role of parents picking the environment is important. If peer groups and or friends are important then steering their children towards peers and or friends acceptable to the parents is important. And parents, at least parents that we would consider good parents, do much more than teach good behavior. Good parents provide good nutrition, they provide secure and comforting homes, they provide stability, they provide good educations, and they provide safe havens when or if the world outside of the home gets too rough.

Granted some of these things are out of reach of some "good" parents due to financial and or other factors, but that's a whole other topic.

Willie71 wrote:http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/inbrief-science-of-ecd/

Considering that parents are the the most present figures in the early years of brain development, they have much greater importance in development that peers who only become the central influences in the early to mid teen years. This is so obvious that it almost doesn't require a response.

While on the surface, stating my field isn't support in itself, do you really think a senior therapist is unaware of the literature? How do you think we get our licences? We have to get the education, pass licensing exams, and some of us engage program development and partake numerous literature reviews throughout our careers. It seems the uninformed think therapy is just wishy washy random discussions. Reality is there are decades of pediatric neurology research, longitudinal childhood development studies, and decades of research on treatment outcomes. All point to the formative years, and treatment focuses on increasing parenting capacity. The arrogance outlined here by the uninformed is staggering.

On another forum, I misunderstood a concept on black holes. An astrophysicist corrected me. I didn't demand citations. What he said made sense based on my hobby level knowledge. I had no reason to doubt someone who works with this stuff every day.

If you make an extraordinary claim, you must present extraordinary evidence.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/inbrief-science-of-ecd/

Considering that parents are the the most present figures in the early years of brain development, they have much greater importance in development that peers who only become the central influences in the early to mid teen years. This is so obvious that it almost doesn't require a response.

While on the surface, stating my field isn't support in itself, do you really think a senior therapist is unaware of the literature? How do you think we get our licences? We have to get the education, pass licensing exams, and some of us engage program development and partake numerous literature reviews throughout our careers. It seems the uninformed think therapy is just wishy washy random discussions. Reality is there are decades of pediatric neurology research, longitudinal childhood development studies, and decades of research on treatment outcomes. All point to the formative years, and treatment focuses on increasing parenting capacity. The arrogance outlined here by the uninformed is staggering.

On another forum, I misunderstood a concept on black holes. An astrophysicist corrected me. I didn't demand citations. What he said made sense based on my hobby level knowledge. I had no reason to doubt someone who works with this stuff every day.

If you make an extraordinary claim, you must present extraordinary evidence.

Nothing in the article you link to is inconsistent with what I wrote or Judith Harris' theory or Steven Pinker's interpretation. The article concerns child development from birth to apx year 5; before much socialization outside of the home. Harris' theory deals with socialization after age 5 where much of it is done outside of the home.

I realize that you posted this before I posted my more detailed explanation. Maybe that will clear things up for you?

While it is true that many forms of deviant behavior are influenced by and take place in the presence of peers, the stereotype that peer pressure causes problem behaviors in otherwise innocent youth is not supported by research. Instead, the old adage “Birds of a feather flock together” still applies–teens tend to gravitate toward friends whose interest and involvement in problem behaviors parallels their own. Because of a strong desire to fit in with their friends, teens often behave in ways that they believe will lead to greater peer acceptance rather than responding to actual pressure from peers to engage in specific behaviors.

On the flip side, peers can provide strong positive influence during the teen years. Friends can promote good academic performance, encourage healthy extracurricular activities and deter teens from risky behaviors. In addition, friends are a much-needed source of social support during adolescence and can serve as a protective factor against teen depression and suicide.

Parental opportunities to influence their child’s friendship choices occur before, as well as throughout, adolescence. Parents can influence their children’s friendship choices by where they choose to live, their parenting practices and the values they instill in their children from the earliest stages of life.

All these parental choices can have a powerful and lasting (although indirect) influence on the friends that their children choose during the adolescent years.

Peers influence our behavior but parents play a part in which peers we choose to associate with. Our behavior in public and at work is largely determined by our childhood peers but our family behavior is determined by the early lessons we received at home.

Willie71 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Teague wrote:

Old skeptic, you are flat out wrong on this. I am a family therapist, and by far the greatest influence on a child's development is the parents and immediate social network. Peers are influential after the majority of brain development and socialization has already passed. There was a researcher a few years ago who tried to pistulate that peers are more important than parents, but her work was deep,y flawed, overlooking many very well established principles in a child's development.

The woman's name you can't come up with is Judith Harris, she has a masters in psychology and has been doing research in cognitive development since 1977, and has co-authored two text books on child development. Her article, published in Psychological Review, that I based my explanation on was awarded a George A. Miller Prize in Cognitive Neuroscience by the American Psychological Association in 1995.

The book based on Harris' new theory, The Nurture Assumption was published with 1998 with a forward by Steven Pinker, another George A. Miller Prize in Cognitive Neuroscience in 2010, and was a Pulitzer Prize finalist for general non-fiction in 1999.

Harris did more than just try to postulate, she fleshed out her new theory and had it published in the most respected peer reviewed psychology journal in the US.

In a nut shell Harris' conclusions were that parents teach children how to behave at home. As Steven Pinker put it in How the Mind Works "children everywhere are socialized by their peer group, not by their parents. At all ages children
join various play groups, circles, gangs, packs, cliques, and salons, and they jockey for status within them." Or in Harris' own words peers teach children and young adults how to behave outside of the home.

Certainly parents contribute to how children and young people behave outside of the home, as do genetics, family, and other social networks, but it should be easy to understand that the world outside of the home and family is where they learn how to deal with/behave in the world outside of the home.

It also an observable that people in general, and not just children and young adults often behave differently in different environments but especially adolescents and young adults: They often behave differently at school than they do at home, or at work, or in church, or on the streets. Even behave differently in one group of peers as opposed to another.

What started this particular tangent in this thread was this from Macdoc concerning the term "superpredator" coined by John DiIulio a professor of political science. Macdoc frowns on a professor of political science doing psychology and sociology, then contends that, ethics are innate except for some womb induced or genetically caused anomalies.

And while I agree that there are some womb induced and genetically caused anomalies behind violent behavior it's far too simple, actually outlandish, to think that they are a main cause let alone the only cause of violent behavior in youths.

So remember that what was being discussed was not how youths act at home, or in a classroom, or at grandma's house, or in church. We are talking about youths in their own "environment" separate from the others where the roll models may be slightly older peers and or peers higher up in the pecking order.

Something to consider is that, not always but very often, when a young person commits a violent act like rape or assault or murder the reaction of family, neighbors, and other adults that know them is surprise and disbelief. We hear things like, "I can't believe it, he/she was/is such a nice polite young woman/man." Using Harris' theory, as accepted by Pinker and others in the field, there are good explanations of how the acts of the violence committed by the youth can be squared with the nice polite young man/woman of the experiences of people outside of the peer group/gang/clique.

Something else to consider is how often and quick parents themselves are to blame change in behavior of their children for the worse on "bad influences" in the form of new friends/peers. Yet parents are unlikely to give the same degree of credit for changes in behavior for the better to new peers/friends, even though in deeds and conversation they demonstrate that they do place a great deal of importance on peers/friends by wanting to raise there children in "good" neighborhoods, send them to "good" schools. Parents, and some psychologists and sociologists, are reluctant, even venomously opposed, to Harris and her theory while at the same time admitting that the environment is a very large factor in the behavior of children, adolescents, and young adults by talking about the importance of such things as "good" neighborhoods and "good" schools.

Harris' new theory isn't really all that new. It's just that she spoke what an awful lot of people did/do not want to hear or face. And like some Christians that want to justify their god thru morals consequentialism where by if their god doesn't exist to be the source of their morals there is no reason to be moral. Some parents, and some psychologists and sociologists, resit Harris' theory because they think Harris is delivering a message that good parenting is futile in the light of larger roles that genetics and peer groups play. There is no such message. Nowhere in Harris' or Pinker's or anyone else's writings on the subject is there even a hint that good parenting is useless or not valuable. It's just that the utility and value may not be where most parents, and some psychologists and sociologists believe them to be.

If a good environment is important then the role of parents picking the environment is important. If peer groups and or friends are important then steering their children towards peers and or friends acceptable to the parents is important. And parents, at least parents that we would consider good parents, do much more than teach good behavior. Good parents provide good nutrition, they provide secure and comforting homes, they provide stability, they provide good educations, and they provide safe havens when or if the world outside of the home gets too rough.

Granted some of these things are out of reach of some "good" parents due to financial and or other factors, but that's a whole other topic.

The short answer to this is that attempts to effectively parent aren't good enough.

The appropriate parenting strategies for the child must be used to lay the foundation that grounds personality in later life.

I have a mental block with names, so you are right, I didn't remember her name. I have read her work, and was rather unimpressed, as were most of my colleagues. What she suggests doesn't fit with what we know works.This researcher ignores the wealth of information out there. Try reading Bleiberg or Alken, and compare to the research Moffat did. These three are staples for anyone working with teens, and their work is much more robustly supported. Moffat is particularly damning to the work you cited. Have you read Murray Bowen? His works from the 60's are still relevant today, and most effective modern psychotherapies stem from his family insights.

Peers in the moment can be shown to have much influence, more than parents, but who we choose as our peers can be directly traced to how we were patented in our early years. This is the knockout punch in a nutshell.

Boyle wrote:Bullshit when I'm hammered everything looks like a toilet and/or bed.

Boyle wrote:Bullshit when I'm hammered everything looks like a toilet and/or bed.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

The woman's name you can't come up with is Judith Harris, she has a masters in psychology and has been doing research in cognitive development since 1977, and has co-authored two text books on child development. Her article, published in Psychological Review, that I based my explanation on was awarded a George A. Miller Prize in Cognitive Neuroscience by the American Psychological Association in 1995.

The book based on Harris' new theory, The Nurture Assumption was published with 1998 with a forward by Steven Pinker, another George A. Miller Prize in Cognitive Neuroscience in 2010, and was a Pulitzer Prize finalist for general non-fiction in 1999.

Harris did more than just try to postulate, she fleshed out her new theory and had it published in the most respected peer reviewed psychology journal in the US.

In a nut shell Harris' conclusions were that parents teach children how to behave at home. As Steven Pinker put it in How the Mind Works "children everywhere are socialized by their peer group, not by their parents. At all ages children
join various play groups, circles, gangs, packs, cliques, and salons, and they jockey for status within them." Or in Harris' own words peers teach children and young adults how to behave outside of the home.

Certainly parents contribute to how children and young people behave outside of the home, as do genetics, family, and other social networks, but it should be easy to understand that the world outside of the home and family is where they learn how to deal with/behave in the world outside of the home.

It also an observable that people in general, and not just children and young adults often behave differently in different environments but especially adolescents and young adults: They often behave differently at school than they do at home, or at work, or in church, or on the streets. Even behave differently in one group of peers as opposed to another.

What started this particular tangent in this thread was this from Macdoc concerning the term "superpredator" coined by John DiIulio a professor of political science. Macdoc frowns on a professor of political science doing psychology and sociology, then contends that, ethics are innate except for some womb induced or genetically caused anomalies.

And while I agree that there are some womb induced and genetically caused anomalies behind violent behavior it's far too simple, actually outlandish, to think that they are a main cause let alone the only cause of violent behavior in youths.

So remember that what was being discussed was not how youths act at home, or in a classroom, or at grandma's house, or in church. We are talking about youths in their own "environment" separate from the others where the roll models may be slightly older peers and or peers higher up in the pecking order.

Something to consider is that, not always but very often, when a young person commits a violent act like rape or assault or murder the reaction of family, neighbors, and other adults that know them is surprise and disbelief. We hear things like, "I can't believe it, he/she was/is such a nice polite young woman/man." Using Harris' theory, as accepted by Pinker and others in the field, there are good explanations of how the acts of the violence committed by the youth can be squared with the nice polite young man/woman of the experiences of people outside of the peer group/gang/clique.

Something else to consider is how often and quick parents themselves are to blame change in behavior of their children for the worse on "bad influences" in the form of new friends/peers. Yet parents are unlikely to give the same degree of credit for changes in behavior for the better to new peers/friends, even though in deeds and conversation they demonstrate that they do place a great deal of importance on peers/friends by wanting to raise there children in "good" neighborhoods, send them to "good" schools. Parents, and some psychologists and sociologists, are reluctant, even venomously opposed, to Harris and her theory while at the same time admitting that the environment is a very large factor in the behavior of children, adolescents, and young adults by talking about the importance of such things as "good" neighborhoods and "good" schools.

Harris' new theory isn't really all that new. It's just that she spoke what an awful lot of people did/do not want to hear or face. And like some Christians that want to justify their god thru morals consequentialism where by if their god doesn't exist to be the source of their morals there is no reason to be moral. Some parents, and some psychologists and sociologists, resit Harris' theory because they think Harris is delivering a message that good parenting is futile in the light of larger roles that genetics and peer groups play. There is no such message. Nowhere in Harris' or Pinker's or anyone else's writings on the subject is there even a hint that good parenting is useless or not valuable. It's just that the utility and value may not be where most parents, and some psychologists and sociologists believe them to be.

If a good environment is important then the role of parents picking the environment is important. If peer groups and or friends are important then steering their children towards peers and or friends acceptable to the parents is important. And parents, at least parents that we would consider good parents, do much more than teach good behavior. Good parents provide good nutrition, they provide secure and comforting homes, they provide stability, they provide good educations, and they provide safe havens when or if the world outside of the home gets too rough.

Granted some of these things are out of reach of some "good" parents due to financial and or other factors, but that's a whole other topic.

The short answer to this is that attempts to effectively parent aren't good enough.

That's the impression of futility that I mentioned, and if that is the message you get from it then you weren't paying attention.

The appropriate parenting strategies for the child must be used to lay the foundation that grounds personality in later life.

Well then, perhaps you can explain how children close in age, growing up in the same home with the same parents can, and often do, have wildly disparate personalities, particularly step siblings where genetic effects seem to be so pronounced.

I have a mental block with names, so you are right, I didn't remember her name. I have read her work, and was rather unimpressed, as were most of my colleagues. What she suggests doesn't fit with what we know works.This researcher ignores the wealth of information out there. Try reading Bleiberg or Alken, and compare to the research Moffat did. These three are staples for anyone working with teens, and their work is much more robustly supported. Moffat is particularly damning to the work you cited. Have you read Murray Bowen? His works from the 60's are still relevant today, and most effective modern psychotherapies stem from his family insights.

Apparently you have some sort of block about providing citations in enough detail to be examined. And a block concerning presenting your own arguments in support of your position.

All you have done, once again, is present your supposed credentials, said, "na uh," and repeated your assertion.

Peers in the moment can be shown to have much influence, more than parents, but who we choose as our peers can be directly traced to how we were patented in our early years. This is the knockout punch in a nutshell.

Na uh.

Willie71 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

The woman's name you can't come up with is Judith Harris, she has a masters in psychology and has been doing research in cognitive development since 1977, and has co-authored two text books on child development. Her article, published in Psychological Review, that I based my explanation on was awarded a George A. Miller Prize in Cognitive Neuroscience by the American Psychological Association in 1995.

The book based on Harris' new theory, The Nurture Assumption was published with 1998 with a forward by Steven Pinker, another George A. Miller Prize in Cognitive Neuroscience in 2010, and was a Pulitzer Prize finalist for general non-fiction in 1999.

Harris did more than just try to postulate, she fleshed out her new theory and had it published in the most respected peer reviewed psychology journal in the US.

In a nut shell Harris' conclusions were that parents teach children how to behave at home. As Steven Pinker put it in How the Mind Works "children everywhere are socialized by their peer group, not by their parents. At all ages children
join various play groups, circles, gangs, packs, cliques, and salons, and they jockey for status within them." Or in Harris' own words peers teach children and young adults how to behave outside of the home.

Certainly parents contribute to how children and young people behave outside of the home, as do genetics, family, and other social networks, but it should be easy to understand that the world outside of the home and family is where they learn how to deal with/behave in the world outside of the home.

It also an observable that people in general, and not just children and young adults often behave differently in different environments but especially adolescents and young adults: They often behave differently at school than they do at home, or at work, or in church, or on the streets. Even behave differently in one group of peers as opposed to another.

What started this particular tangent in this thread was this from Macdoc concerning the term "superpredator" coined by John DiIulio a professor of political science. Macdoc frowns on a professor of political science doing psychology and sociology, then contends that, ethics are innate except for some womb induced or genetically caused anomalies.

And while I agree that there are some womb induced and genetically caused anomalies behind violent behavior it's far too simple, actually outlandish, to think that they are a main cause let alone the only cause of violent behavior in youths.

So remember that what was being discussed was not how youths act at home, or in a classroom, or at grandma's house, or in church. We are talking about youths in their own "environment" separate from the others where the roll models may be slightly older peers and or peers higher up in the pecking order.

Something to consider is that, not always but very often, when a young person commits a violent act like rape or assault or murder the reaction of family, neighbors, and other adults that know them is surprise and disbelief. We hear things like, "I can't believe it, he/she was/is such a nice polite young woman/man." Using Harris' theory, as accepted by Pinker and others in the field, there are good explanations of how the acts of the violence committed by the youth can be squared with the nice polite young man/woman of the experiences of people outside of the peer group/gang/clique.

Something else to consider is how often and quick parents themselves are to blame change in behavior of their children for the worse on "bad influences" in the form of new friends/peers. Yet parents are unlikely to give the same degree of credit for changes in behavior for the better to new peers/friends, even though in deeds and conversation they demonstrate that they do place a great deal of importance on peers/friends by wanting to raise there children in "good" neighborhoods, send them to "good" schools. Parents, and some psychologists and sociologists, are reluctant, even venomously opposed, to Harris and her theory while at the same time admitting that the environment is a very large factor in the behavior of children, adolescents, and young adults by talking about the importance of such things as "good" neighborhoods and "good" schools.

Harris' new theory isn't really all that new. It's just that she spoke what an awful lot of people did/do not want to hear or face. And like some Christians that want to justify their god thru morals consequentialism where by if their god doesn't exist to be the source of their morals there is no reason to be moral. Some parents, and some psychologists and sociologists, resit Harris' theory because they think Harris is delivering a message that good parenting is futile in the light of larger roles that genetics and peer groups play. There is no such message. Nowhere in Harris' or Pinker's or anyone else's writings on the subject is there even a hint that good parenting is useless or not valuable. It's just that the utility and value may not be where most parents, and some psychologists and sociologists believe them to be.

If a good environment is important then the role of parents picking the environment is important. If peer groups and or friends are important then steering their children towards peers and or friends acceptable to the parents is important. And parents, at least parents that we would consider good parents, do much more than teach good behavior. Good parents provide good nutrition, they provide secure and comforting homes, they provide stability, they provide good educations, and they provide safe havens when or if the world outside of the home gets too rough.

Granted some of these things are out of reach of some "good" parents due to financial and or other factors, but that's a whole other topic.

The short answer to this is that attempts to effectively parent aren't good enough.

That's the impression of futility that I mentioned, and if that is the message you get from it then you weren't paying attention.

The appropriate parenting strategies for the child must be used to lay the foundation that grounds personality in later life.

Well then, perhaps you can explain how children close in age, growing up in the same home with the same parents can, and often do, have wildly disparate personalities, particularly step siblings where genetic effects seem to be so pronounced.

I have a mental block with names, so you are right, I didn't remember her name. I have read her work, and was rather unimpressed, as were most of my colleagues. What she suggests doesn't fit with what we know works.This researcher ignores the wealth of information out there. Try reading Bleiberg or Alken, and compare to the research Moffat did. These three are staples for anyone working with teens, and their work is much more robustly supported. Moffat is particularly damning to the work you cited. Have you read Murray Bowen? His works from the 60's are still relevant today, and most effective modern psychotherapies stem from his family insights.

Apparently you have some sort of block about providing citations in enough detail to be examined. And a block concerning presenting your own arguments in support of your position.

All you have done, once again, is present your supposed credentials, said, "na uh," and repeated your assertion.

Peers in the moment can be shown to have much influence, more than parents, but who we choose as our peers can be directly traced to how we were patented in our early years. This is the knockout punch in a nutshell.

Na uh.

Sorry, everything you ask about is clearly explained in the literature. This is Dunning Kruger at its finest.

I gave you four seminal works and that is refusing to provide citations? How about you read what I listed and we go from there. Start with Moffat, then read Bowen. Do a search, and pick anything by them. Their information is the cornerstone of our understanding, and anyone interested in this field has come across their work. The fact that you don't know who they are is telling. It would be like someone discussing physics who doesn't know who Suskind or Krause are. Bleiberg and Allen are more technical, so without a background in the field may be beyond you.

Why do peers close in age have different personalities? Simple. Parenting changes people, and what they react to and how they react is different from child to child. Secondly, these children are not genetically identical. We often see wildly different temperaments in children born to the same parents. The nature/nurture debate settled in at about 70/30, environment/genetics respectively. This is so obvious, and well researched, yet is missed by Harris. Harris ignores the twin studies, or at least fails to address them adequately. Harris comes across as a parent whose child went off the rails and is trying to explain it away. Iirc, she might have even mentioned this at some point.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:


The short answer to this is that attempts to effectively parent aren't good enough.

That's the impression of futility that I mentioned, and if that is the message you get from it then you weren't paying attention.

The appropriate parenting strategies for the child must be used to lay the foundation that grounds personality in later life.

Well then, perhaps you can explain how children close in age, growing up in the same home with the same parents can, and often do, have wildly disparate personalities, particularly step siblings where genetic effects seem to be so pronounced.

I have a mental block with names, so you are right, I didn't remember her name. I have read her work, and was rather unimpressed, as were most of my colleagues. What she suggests doesn't fit with what we know works.This researcher ignores the wealth of information out there. Try reading Bleiberg or Alken, and compare to the research Moffat did. These three are staples for anyone working with teens, and their work is much more robustly supported. Moffat is particularly damning to the work you cited. Have you read Murray Bowen? His works from the 60's are still relevant today, and most effective modern psychotherapies stem from his family insights.

Apparently you have some sort of block about providing citations in enough detail to be examined. And a block concerning presenting your own arguments in support of your position.

All you have done, once again, is present your supposed credentials, said, "na uh," and repeated your assertion.

Peers in the moment can be shown to have much influence, more than parents, but who we choose as our peers can be directly traced to how we were patented in our early years. This is the knockout punch in a nutshell.

Na uh.

Sorry, everything you ask about is clearly explained in the literature. This is Dunning Kruger at its finest.

You know if a layman makes that diagnoses on little experience with the subject I just let it pass, but you being an accredited professional psychologist I really have to wonder about your competence.

I gave you four seminal works and that is refusing to provide citations? How about you read what I listed and we go from there. Start with Moffat, then read Bowen. Do a search, and pick anything by them. Their information is the cornerstone of our understanding, and anyone interested in this field has come across their work. The fact that you don't know who they are is telling. It would be like someone discussing physics who doesn't know who Suskind or Krause are. Bleiberg and Allen are more technical, so without a background in the field may be beyond you.

You didn't provide citations. You provided some names of people that have written quite a bit. You didn't even name which work of any of them to look for your supposed corroboration, or even what you think supports your argument. And as I said before, you don't have an argument because you haven't made an argument. All you've done is say, "Na uh," and named authorities that you don't even seem to be familiar enough with to find quotations or point to where and how they support your "argument".

Let me clue you in: In a discussion here you are expected to provide citations that can be checked with a minimum of difficulty, especially when asked for citations. This is not a scavenger hunt where if I can't track down what the fuck you're talking you win some prize.

Why do peers close in age have different personalities? Simple. Parenting changes people, and what they react to and how they react is different from child to child. Secondly, these children are not genetically identical. We often see wildly different temperaments in children born to the same parents. The nature/nurture debate settled in at about 70/30, environment/genetics respectively. This is so obvious, and well researched, yet is missed by Harris. Harris ignores the twin studies, or at least fails to address them adequately. Harris comes across as a parent whose child went off the rails and is trying to explain it away. Iirc, she might have even mentioned this at some point.

Why the fuck you think I'd want to continue a discussion with you on this subject until you provide some sources I can't fathom. Show your work, for fuck sake. If you're the grand fucking great psychologist with 23 years of experience then you should be able to back up your arguments. Otherwise I'll have to assume that your just another internet poser that doesn't know what he's talking about.

Willie71 wrote:https://www.amazon.ca/Family-Therapy-Clinical-Practice-Murray/dp/0876687613/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1461992376&sr=8-2&keywords=murray+bowen

https://www.amazon.ca/Treating-Personal ... ersonality

http://www.amazon.com/Traumatic-Relatio ... nskepti-20

http://www.kidsmentalhealth.ca/document ... sorder.pdf

You might want to certify for this risk assessment tool which I use regularily.

http://www.mhs.com/product.aspx?gr=saf& ... d=yls-cmi2

Or this one:

http://www4.parinc.com/Products/Product ... ctID=SAVRY

You might start to grasp the influences on kids' behaviour,

Willie71 wrote:https://www.amazon.ca/Family-Therapy-Clinical-Practice-Murray/dp/0876687613/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1461992376&sr=8-2&keywords=murray+bowen

https://www.amazon.ca/Treating-Personality-Disorders-Children-Adolescents/dp/B019NEECBG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1461992454&sr=8-2&keywords=Bleiberg+personality

http://www.amazon.com/Traumatic-Relationships-Serious-Mental-Disorders/dp/0471485543/ref=la_B001ITWTM4_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461992725&sr=1-6&tag=rationskepti-20&tag=rationskepti-20

http://www.kidsmentalhealth.ca/documents/EBP_conduct_disorder.pdf

crank wrote:

Willie71 wrote:https://www.amazon.ca/Family-Therapy-Clinical-Practice-Murray/dp/0876687613/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1461992376&sr=8-2&keywords=murray+bowen

https://www.amazon.ca/Treating-Personal ... ersonality

http://www.amazon.com/Traumatic-Relatio ... nskepti-20

http://www.kidsmentalhealth.ca/document ... sorder.pdf

You might want to certify for this risk assessment tool which I use regularily.

http://www.mhs.com/product.aspx?gr=saf& ... d=yls-cmi2

Or this one:

http://www4.parinc.com/Products/Product ... ctID=SAVRY

You might start to grasp the influences on kids' behaviour,

I am not even close to competent enough to have a say in this argument, I posted what I did based on the sources I cited, and your posts look like an impressive case, plus I'd almost cut my hands off to stop myself from agreeing with OldSkeptic. Still, I have to add one thing. I clicked some of the links above, the first thing I saw was "YLS/CMI™ 2.0", where you find the word 'offender' repeated often. I have a history with court-ordered programs, drunk driving arrests, and was subject to 3 or 4 rounds of court-ordered anti-substance-abuse programs. They had materials with 'credentialed' authors. The total value across all of them was not too far away from zero. The one bit I remember very well was being told about the evils of marijuana, with xeroxed sheets from some book. It was utter BS, like that the brains of heavy users turn black with some kind of deposits. My general impression was of a series of programs with the medicine/health issues/teaching/pronouncements/treatments/etc determined by court and politics, divorced from any real, recent medical research. I am NOT accusing you of being a part of such programs, or of falling in with out-dated science that lives on because of political BS. What I am saying is if you find the court involved in any way with medical/health/psychiatric programs, as in seeing this product designed for 'offenders', a red flag is raised, and it's a fucking big red flag.

[Edit-correction last line had 'defenders']

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:https://www.amazon.ca/Family-Therapy-Clinical-Practice-Murray/dp/0876687613/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1461992376&sr=8-2&keywords=murray+bowen

Page 430: "The group prescribes language, dress, and behavior"

https://www.amazon.ca/Treating-Personality-Disorders-Children-Adolescents/dp/B019NEECBG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1461992454&sr=8-2&keywords=Bleiberg+personality

I didn't expect to find anything in this one way or the other, and didn't.

http://www.amazon.com/Traumatic-Relationships-Serious-Mental-Disorders/dp/0471485543/ref=la_B001ITWTM4_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461992725&sr=1-6&tag=rationskepti-20&tag=rationskepti-20

I didn't expect to find anything in this one way or the other, and didn't.

http://www.kidsmentalhealth.ca/documents/EBP_conduct_disorder.pdf

Page 14: "Since adolescents rely more on peers than parents or teachers for values and direction, intervention with adolescents should include a focus on peers as well as family." (Feldman & Weinberger, 1994)

Page 16: " To avoid conduct-disordered behavior, intervention may be necessary to remove the youth from an antisocial group and help them to develop a new peer group. "

Really, This is too fucking easy. What you've put up so far isn't about teaching children values and behavior, they're about managing children and parent training.

And just as I said, and two of your sources seem to agree, peer groups, groups of friend, gangs, whatever are where adolescents learn their behavior and get their values. And just as I said, Every one really knows that Harris is right they just don't want to hear it. Some parents, and some psychologists and sociologists, resit Harris' theory because they think Harris is delivering a message that good parenting is futile in the light of larger roles that genetics and peer groups play. There is no such message. Nowhere in Harris' or Pinker's or anyone else's writings on the subject is there even a hint that good parenting is useless or not valuable. It's just that the utility and value may not be where most parents, and some psychologists and sociologists believe them to be.

In infant-parent interactions, mirroring consists of the parent imitating the infant's expressions while vocalizing the emotion implied by the expression.[6] This imitation helps the infant to associate the emotion with their expression, as well as feel validated in their own emotions as the parent shows approval through imitation. Studies have demonstrated that mirroring is an important part of child and infant development. According to Kohut's theories of self-psychology, individuals need a sense of validation and belonging in order to establish their concepts of self.[7] When parents mirror their infants, the action may help the child develop a greater sense of self-awareness and self-control, as they can see their emotions within their parent's faces. Additionally, infants may learn and experience new emotions, facial expressions, and gestures by mirroring expressions that their parents utilize. The process of mirroring may help infants establish connections of expressions to emotions and thus promote social communication later in life. Infants also learn to feel secure and valid in their own emotions through mirroring, as the parent's imitation of their emotions may help the child recognize their own thoughts and feelings more readily.

Willie71 wrote:

crank wrote:

Willie71 wrote:https://www.amazon.ca/Family-Therapy-Clinical-Practice-Murray/dp/0876687613/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1461992376&sr=8-2&keywords=murray+bowen

https://www.amazon.ca/Treating-Personal ... ersonality

http://www.amazon.com/Traumatic-Relatio ... nskepti-20

http://www.kidsmentalhealth.ca/document ... sorder.pdf

You might want to certify for this risk assessment tool which I use regularily.

http://www.mhs.com/product.aspx?gr=saf& ... d=yls-cmi2

Or this one:

http://www4.parinc.com/Products/Product ... ctID=SAVRY

You might start to grasp the influences on kids' behaviour,

I am not even close to competent enough to have a say in this argument, I posted what I did based on the sources I cited, and your posts look like an impressive case, plus I'd almost cut my hands off to stop myself from agreeing with OldSkeptic. Still, I have to add one thing. I clicked some of the links above, the first thing I saw was "YLS/CMI™ 2.0", where you find the word 'offender' repeated often. I have a history with court-ordered programs, drunk driving arrests, and was subject to 3 or 4 rounds of court-ordered anti-substance-abuse programs. They had materials with 'credentialed' authors. The total value across all of them was not too far away from zero. The one bit I remember very well was being told about the evils of marijuana, with xeroxed sheets from some book. It was utter BS, like that the brains of heavy users turn black with some kind of deposits. My general impression was of a series of programs with the medicine/health issues/teaching/pronouncements/treatments/etc determined by court and politics, divorced from any real, recent medical research. I am NOT accusing you of being a part of such programs, or of falling in with out-dated science that lives on because of political BS. What I am saying is if you find the court involved in any way with medical/health/psychiatric programs, as in seeing this product designed for 'offenders', a red flag is raised, and it's a fucking big red flag.

[Edit-correction last line had 'defenders']

You are correct in that the US correction service is a sham. The risk assessments listed are the best of the bunch, and do have statistical validity. You raised a valid question. The program's I worked in and later developed did rely on extensive lit reviews.