4 ms·

This is a lengthy read, but I was startled enough by an observation halfway through that I thought to comment on it: after mostly quoting legendary physicists t

This is a lengthy read, but I was startled enough by an observation halfway through that I thought to comment on it: after mostly quoting legendary physicists to drive home points about stupidity and arrogance, the author quotes a certain Judith Rich Harris. I only recognized the name because, in the course of reading various parenting tracts, I came across her book The Nurture Fallacy and it absolutely upended my beliefs on the subject. That she would be placed alongside Richard Feynmann as an exemplar of scientific virtue is a testament to the boldness (and truth) of her theory, but it is inconvenient enough to her field that it has been largely buried and most parents will never hear the truth.

barry-cotter 5y ago
Her work isn’t suppressed. It’s just not popular. People prefer to believe pretty lies. She received a major award from her professional society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Rich_Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Rich_Harris > In 1994 she formulated a new theory of child development, focusing on the peer group rather than the family. This formed the basis for a 1995 article in the Psychological Review,[7] which received the American Psychological Association's George A. Miller Award for an Outstanding Recent Article in General Psychology.[8] Is it dangerous to claim that parents have no power at all (other than genetic) to shape their child's personality, intelligence, or the way he or she behaves outside the family home? ... A confession: When I first made this proposal ten years ago, I didn't fully believe it myself. I took an extreme position, the null hypothesis of zero parental influence, for the sake of scientific clarity. ... The establishment's failure to shoot me down has been nothing short of astonishing. Judith Rich Harris, 2006.[9]
- fristechill 5y ago
  I'm glad somebody has referred to truth at last because the habit of truth, according to Jacob Bronowski, is perhaps the primary scientific virtue. That is, telling and acknowledging the truth about even the minutest facts relating to one's scientific activity, whether in public print or in strictest privacy.

barry-cotter 5y ago

Her work isn’t suppressed. It’s just not popular. People prefer to believe pretty lies. She received a major award from her professional society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Rich_Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Rich_Harris > In 1994 she formulated a new theory of child development, focusing on the peer group rather than the family. This formed the basis for a 1995 article in the Psychological Review,[7] which received the American Psychological Association's George A. Miller Award for an Outstanding Recent Article in General Psychology.[8] Is it dangerous to claim that parents have no power at all (other than genetic) to shape their child's personality, intelligence, or the way he or she behaves outside the family home? ... A confession: When I first made this proposal ten years ago, I didn't fully believe it myself. I took an extreme position, the null hypothesis of zero parental influence, for the sake of scientific clarity. ... The establishment's failure to shoot me down has been nothing short of astonishing. Judith Rich Harris, 2006.[9]

fristechill 5y ago
I'm glad somebody has referred to truth at last because the habit of truth, according to Jacob Bronowski, is perhaps the primary scientific virtue. That is, telling and acknowledging the truth about even the minutest facts relating to one's scientific activity, whether in public print or in strictest privacy.