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

This unfortunate NYT bestselling author: http://www.amazon.com/Nurture-Assumption-Children-Revised-Updated/dp/1439101655

> People have absolutely terrible intuitions ... and if something effective seems to lack face validity, I think people just trust their guts and shun the "weird" method.

I graduated in psych two years ago, and man I totally agree. People have absolutely terrible intuitions about so many things that have been well-researched in Psychology. Sometimes I wonder if Psychology suffers from this more than any other field. This book certainly comes to mind.

I sort of pride myself in being extremely skeptical. Whenever I encounter "common knowledge" — even, perhaps especially, my own assumptions — I try to say to myself "hmm, I bet there's some really fascinating research that proves this wrong." Unfortunately I don't meet many others with that mindset.

The Nurture Assumption by Judith Harris, in case you want to approach human cognitive development from a developmental psychology perspective, and how parenting and peer presence compete in the development of children into adults

https://www.amazon.in/Nurture-Assumption-Children-Revised-Updated/dp/1439101655

It's a very sad thing, but a lot of the reason why abused children often themselves become abusers is just that they share half the genes of an abuser. "Nature vs. Nurture" isn't a settled debate, but there's at least something to the Nature side.

That certainly doesn't mean Palpatine was always doomed to be evil, but there's a statistical tendency against him.

Maybe the Jedi, having the supernatural ability to sense emotions and foresee the future consequences of their actions, could raise a troubled child the right way, with far better parenting than any mundane person could manage - but on the other hand, look at Anakin.

I don't think a Palpatine raised by the Jedi would have become a Sith Lord nonetheless, but it's not impossible.

I'm sorry but I downvoted this.

First, I find it kind of puzzling that one can write about "another child has been lost to science" while in his own explanation completely ignores social science. Yes, social science is more fuzzy than the natural sciences. This is hardly a surprise given how easy natural science is from a research point of view. Just to mention one example, physicists can destroy a few billion atoms and nobody cares. In contrast, people would probably be a bit irritated if we'd dissect just a few hundred humans.

Second, while some researchers have studied child attachment as a cause for religious beliefs, there's also a good chunk of evidence pointing the other direction. For instance, twin and adoption studies indicate that about 40-50% of the variation in religiosity may be due to genetic influences.

Children may – at some point in their lives – be willing to belief nonsense but this is often corrected in later stages of development. The belief in God is nonsense from our point of view, but the wide-spread acceptance of supernatural ideas indicate that this is a by-product of our cognitive equipment. Expressed differently, for many people concepts like gods, ancestors, ghosts, etc. are very intuitive, and this may be why many people continue to believe.

Third, some research suggests that parents may not be such a influential source when it comes to socialization. Concerning personality, it seems the larger influence is a kid's peer group. Parents may only appear to be so influential, because the parents of a peer group share a common culture. Efforts to teach critical thinking may be wasted if one's kid grows up in a neighborhood with lots of religious parents.

Here's a pretty good book on the subject: https://www.amazon.ca/Nurture-Assumption-Children-Revised-Updated/dp/1439101655

Based on all the literature she reviews, her estimate is that genes determine like 60% of us.

Parenting doesn't matter. Genes matter.

https://www.amazon.com/Nurture-Assumption-Children-Revised-Updated/dp/1439101655

I wouldn't worry as much about kids having role models and such. Parential influence is probably overrated. Genetic influence, on the other hand is often underrated. What I am trying to say is that your son might turn out good or bad regardless what you do.