Product Description
This groundbreaking book, a Pulitzer Prize finalist and New York Times notable pick, rattled the psychological establishment when it was first published in 1998 by claiming that parents have little impact on their children's development. In this tenth anniversary edition of The Nurture Assumption, Judith Harris has updated material throughout and provided a fresh introduction. Combining insights from psychology, sociology, anthropology, primatology, and evolutionary biology, she explains how and why the tendency of children to take cues from their peers works to their evolutionary advantage. This electrifying book explodes many of our unquestioned beliefs about children and parents and gives us a radically new view of childhood.

Amazon.com Review
Whether it's musical talent, criminal tendencies, or fashion sense, we humans want to know why we have it or why we don't. What makes us the way we are? Maybe it's in our genes, maybe it's how we were raised, maybe it's a little of both--in any case, Mom and Dad usually receive both the credit and the blame. But not so fast, says developmental psychology writer Judith Rich Harris. While it has been shown that genetics is only partly responsible for behavior, it is also true, Harris asserts, that parents play a very minor role in mental and emotional development. The Nurture Assumption explores the mountain of evidence pointing away from parents and toward peer groups as the strongest environmental influence on personality development. Rather than leaping into the nature vs. nurture fray, Harris instead posits nurture (parental) vs. nurture (peer group), and in her view your kid's friends win, hands down. This idea, difficult as it may be to accept, is supported by the countless studies Harris cites in her breezy, charming prose. She is upset about the blame laid on parents of troubled children and has much to say (mostly negative) about "professional parental advice-givers." Her own advice may be summarized as "guide your child's peer-group choices wisely," but the aim of the book is less to offer guidance than to tear off cultural blinders. Harris's ideas are so thought-provoking, challenging, and potentially controversial that anyone concerned with parenting issues will find The Nurture Assumption refreshing, important, and possibly life-changing. --Rob Lightner

CUSTOMER REVIEWS (Average Customer Rating: 3.5 based on 110 reviews)

The Perils of Big City High Schools by D. P. Birkett (Suffern, NY USA)

4 Stars
September 20, 2009
This is a book that's well worth reading even if you disagree with it. Harris is much better at attacking other people's studies than at defending her own theories, but the attack is done in such an amusing way, with a great deal of personal anecdotes and wit that it provides painless lessons in how to critique the literature. I read Roberta Gilbert's "The Eight Concepts of Bowen Theory" at the same time, so I had a good antidote. (Gilbert cites this book in her references). Harris is gloriously opinionated. How much of the way we are is due to nature and how much to nurture remains unsettled. As the reader of this page will gather, her main belief is in the importance of the peer group, not only in adolescence, but quite early in childhood. She goes to some extremes about this where few will follow her. One gem is: "A big city high school for example is likely to contain a group of boys who have artistic or theatrical interests and are not attracted to girls. Groups of this sort are seldom found in small rural high schools, which may be one of the reasons why male homosexuality is much less common in such settings." I'm sure Dr Dobson would approve.

Stop Blaming Your Parents And Take Responsibility For Your Own Flaws by Cyber Gypsy

5 Stars
September 18, 2009
I've just finished the book The Nurture Assumption and it has been an eye opener. The author does an excellent job at thoroughly debunking the "research" that is supposed to show that parents are responsible for how the child turns out. Note how children hone in on each other, even as babies? Note how when they see another child they are instantly attracted to them? Well this is not the same with child to adult, and children will often differentiate themselves from their parents, ie "my parents smoked dope so I don't", whereas they will "assimilate" with peer groups. There is no such thing as peer pressure - the child actually WANTS to be like their peers. Child abuse does NOT give you any particular character flaws, however it DOES ruin the relationship with your parents, ie you simply don't want to be friends with them when you grow up. But our entire culture is under the delusion that our parents make us or break us as adults. It's so harmful to believe this myth because we can project the blame for our charcter flaws onto our parents and not take responsibility for them. It's much more scary to think that my flaws are all my fault! But also freeing because then I know I can do something about them. The author is similar in her approach to Frank Furedi when she lists other harms of the Nurture Assumption - parents become phoney, babies and children are a source of anxiety not enjoyment, parents are dumped on with a burden of guilt and blame, it diverts the blame from faulty government policies onto parents, and finally that it holds back important research.

analysis of variance by David S. Herskowitz (USA)

5 Stars
July 11, 2009
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.

Interesting concept, but somewhat laborious to read by M. Morris

3 Stars
February 14, 2009
I raised teenagers into adulthood, so the conclusions of the book were nothing new for me. The author researched prodigiously and this is both the strength and weakness of the book. I would have found it more interesting and useful if she had summarized her work, spending more time on the implications for education, family relationships, etc. Buy it used/paperback and you won't regret it.

Brilliantly Iconoclastic by Alexander Kemestrios Ben (Allendale, Mi. USA)

5 Stars
October 22, 2008
What makes you, you? No, I don't mean in the metaphysical "I could be you," cocktail party sense. I mean, what shapes your personality, intelligence, likes, dislikes, and so on? Most, in the West, have assumed that parents played the largest role in shaping personalities. Begin with a blank slate child, add some good or bad parenting, sprinkle a little neighborhood effects, and, voila. However, behavioral genetic, evolutionary psychological, primatological, and anthropological data have rendered the idea of parental influence rather, well, impotent. J.R. Harris lucidly explains an alternative theory of personality formation. Hers is consilient with the totality of the scientific literature. She destroys the myth that parents are to blame for their children's failings. Take two strangers in the street and they are no less alike than adopted siblings; take two twins raised apart and they are no different than twins raised together. Okay, so that is simplistic. It is close enough to the truth, however, to debunk almost all of the popular psychological views on parenting. So why are you, you? 50% genes and, for the rest, you will have to read Harris' enthralling book.

SIMILAR PRODUCTS

	No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality by Judith Rich Harris (Author) A groundbreaking theory of personality. The author of the controversial book The Nurture Assumption tackles the biggest mystery in all of psychology: What makes people differ so much in personality and behavior? It can't just be "nature and nurture," because even identical twins who grow up together—same genes, same parents—have different personalities. And if psychologists can't explain why identical twins are different, they also can't explain why each of us differs from everyone else....
	The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker (Author) In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker, one of the world's leading experts on language and the mind, explores the idea of human nature and its moral, emotional, and political colorings. With characteristic wit, lucidity, and insight, Pinker argues that the dogma that the mind has no innate traits-a doctrine held by many intellectuals during the past century-denies our common humanity and our individual preferences, replaces objective analyses of social problems with feel-good slogans, and distorts...
	Words and Things by Roger Brown (Author)
	Genes and Behavior: Nature-Nurture Interplay Explained by Sir Michael Rutter (Author) In recent years, the subject of genes and their influence on human behavior has become increasingly controversial as concerns about the racist use of genetics, discriminatory eugenics, and neurogenetic determinism have grown. In this major new book, eminent scientist Professor Sir Michael Rutter gets behind the hype to provide a balanced and authoritative overview of the genetic revolution and its implications for understanding human behavior. Rutter sets out in layman's terms what...
	The Sociology of Childhood by Dr. William A. Corsaro (Author) The Sociology of Childhood is the Second Edition of a text that has been universally acclaimed as the best book on the subject available today. It is the only text that thoroughly covers children and childhood from a sociological perspective. The Second Edition retains the same quality coverage of social theories of childhood, the consideration of children and childhood in historical and cultural perspective, children’s peer cultures from preschool through preadolescence, and the social...