Judith Rich Harris is an unlikely renegade. She spent most of her career as a treadmill scholar,
writing psychology textbooks. The
textbook writer distills accepted theories into, well, textbooks, and as you
remember it’s hardly riveting work. Textbook writers don’t develop a lot of new theories that change our
view of the world.
Her credentials as an academic pioneer continue. Back in the 1960s, she was excused from her
Harvard doctoral program for a lack of originality. She’s suffered from an autoimmune disease since
the 1970s that robs her of the strength to leave the house most days. She’s old for a visionary; by the time she came
up with her groundbreaking ideas, she was nearly 60. And finally, she’s from New Jersey. So you can understand why people have been
skeptical about her ideas.
And yet her theories of child development have
proven remarkably predictive and robust. For a decade, scientists have been coming up with tests to prove her
wrong, and keep adding to the evidence that proves her right. Her list of supporters grows and includes
everyone from Steven Pinker and Malcolm Gladwell, who wrote this review of her first book, to William Saletan, who wrote this review of her second.
This blog will be my little effort to summarize
both books, but I warn you now: if you’re a parent, be prepared to be
skeptical. Part of you won’t like what
she has to say. I didn’t, and had to
read the books for myself to settle my disbelief. But if you can get past the doubt, I think
you’ll find it’s actually really good news for us.
Let’s start with a quick review. The theory that Judith Rich Harris upturned
has its roots in the nature v nurture debate: we become the kind of people we do because of our genes and environment;
everyone agrees it’s about a 50:50 split.
The nurture or environment portion of that equation is mostly shaped by
our home life – ergo, our parents - but also affected by our teachers, culture,
friends and, according to my Grandpa, whether you cry Uncle during Indian rubs.
As most of us get our genes and home life from our parents, the theory goes, our parents are the
biggest impact on how we develop – what we’ll be calling Parental
Dominance. Dr Benjamin Spock, who we
talked about in the last blog, helped deepen this theory with his child-centric
parenting focus. Sigmund Freud and M Scott Peck taught us we
could blame our parents for any failure to create the perfect childhood, and
any subsequent neuroses we endured because of that failure. Between the studies on spanking, naughty
chairs, nutrition, library size, wealth and overall happiness, we’ve learned that
parents can accept the blame, and the credit, for how children turn out.
The problem JRH noticed was that the evidence contradicted the theory of Parental Dominance. Let’s look at three examples.
Identical twins have the same genetic makeup. Very rarely are identical twins raised
apart, but when they are, it provides an extraordinary opportunity to study the
exact impact of nurture on the adults they become. These studies should provide evidence to
support Parental Dominance. Yet in our first example, identical twins that are raised apart are just as similar to each other when
they become adults as those identical twins that are raised together.[i] If parenting technique and home environment
accounts for 50% of the kind of adults we become, shouldn’t two identical twins
who are raised in different home environments, with different parents, end up more
dissimilar than two identical twins that are raised together in the same
household? They should... but they aren't. This evidence suggests something other
than Parental Dominance is influencing the children.
Exhibit 2. Traditional
non-twin siblings are far more frequently raised apart, so we have a heck of a
lot more data on them. According to the Parental
Dominance theory, where 2 sets of parenting techniques are used, we should
notice differences in the type of adults they become. Siblings share the same genes but grow up in
different homes, so we can see the impact different parenting choices have on
them more easily. Yet, countless studies
have shown that siblings who are raised in different homes are no more similar
as adults than those siblings raised in the same home.[ii] Again, this just doesn’t make sense in a Parental
Dominance theory.
For exhibit 3 we have some studies on adopted
children. Clearly, according to any Parenting Dominance model, adopted children will be influenced by their adoptive
parents, and ought to share traits with their adoptive siblings. Their adoptive parents have provided the home
environment that Parental Dominance predicts has a major impact on how our kids
develop. They’ve taken them to church,
or not; they’ve taught them a love of reading, or not; they’ve exposed them to
cigarette smoke, alcohol drinking, museum attendance and healthy television
habits, or not. And as both Parental
Dominance and common sense would suggest, being exposed to these parental
choices would shape how children develop.
There’s just a little problem with the evidence. Countless studies show that adopted children
do not exhibit a tendency to be like their adoptive parents, at all, and are
more like their genetic siblings who they’ve often never met than their
adoptive siblings with whom they were raised.[iii] In fact, they’re no more alike their adoptive
siblings than someone chosen at random.
To Judith Rich Harris, this just didn’t make sense.
We all know that children speak the same language
as their parents, share quirky mannerisms with them, prefer the food cooked by their mums and support the same sports
teams as their dads. The list goes
on. Children with aggressive parents are
more likely to be aggressive, children with timid parents are more likely to be
timid, and children with happy, competent parents are more likely to be happy,
competent adults.[iv] It seems obvious to anyone that’s grown up in
the same household as their parents, or whose children have grown up in the
same household as themselves, how big the impact of parents are on their children.
The trouble is, as several studies demonstrate, personality
traits, mannerisms, and even which sports team one follows can be genetic! The Parental Dominance theory always assumed the similarity we see
between father and son is down to observation of the father by the son, but the
evidence shows an amazing number of traits can be inherited. I have a friend who was adopted as an infant
and only met her genetic parents when she was in her mid-30s. She was astonished to find how alike they were,
down to quirky habits and DIY preferences.
Ok, she didn’t support his sports teams, that bit was a joke, but the
rest of this bit is true.
In her effort to make sense of these contradictions,
Judith Rich Harris found the germ of the idea that would make her famous. The
first part of her theory is that Parental Dominance is a cultural myth.
For parents, this undermines most of the ideas
we’ve learned, most of the effort we make and, it would seem, the very purpose
for writing this blog. If parental
choices have almost no impact on the type of adults that our kids become, what’s
the point of reading further? For me,
and the purpose of this blog, the key is the almost bit. If my parenting
choices have very little impact on my kids, call me a control freak, but I want
to maximize whatever impact I do have!
Let’s agree that you’re not completely convinced,
but willing to explore the logical conclusions of this. If not Parental Dominance, what then?
According to JRH, there are three factors: relationships,
socialization and status. Kids decide which views to hold and which
actions to take based on these
factors. More importantly to parents, these
factors are primarily interpreted by kids through the filter of their peer
group. In other words, those actions or
views that are necessary to develop good relationships, fit in with the social
group, or attain status with their peer group are more significant, based on sound evolutionary reasons, than
those actions or views which conform with their parents.
As a parent, I know peer influence is big, but I
had a problem with this idea. I can see parental influence in children’s
manners, attitudes, and all sorts of ways.
But JRH provides evidence that contradicts this notion.
To me, her most convincing argument was her
dismantling of ‘birth order’ theory. You
know the one – since I’m the youngest child, it predicts I’ll behave this way,
and since you’re the eldest child, you’ll behave that way. Your birth order affects your personality, so
clearly the home environment has a big impact on your adulthood. After all, most of your peers and teachers
don’t know your birth order, so couldn’t treat you differently based on it. Therefore, the ‘birth order’ personality
effect would help to support the idea of Parental Dominance.
However, the tests that prove ‘birth order’ had
always been given in the home, to the person’s family. Several recent studies took a group of
students for whom the ‘birth order’ predictors had been high, but instead of
giving the test to their parents and siblings, as had been done previously, the
tests were given to their coworkers and peers within non-family settings. The results were astonishing. All the ‘birth order’ predictors disappeared.
It seems that ‘birth order’ predicts your behavior
in the home. If you’re the eldest, there
is a high chance you’ll act a certain way with your family, but outside your
family you may be a different person. Of
course, your siblings agree with ‘birth order’ theory, but they don’t spend a
lot of time with you at work.
In fact, this is a major plank of her entire
theory proposed by Ms Harris; we are different people with different groups. If you think of your life, I think you’ll
find you’ve played lots of different roles depending on the group you’re
with. With some groups, you’re the smart
one while with others, you’re the funny one and with still others, you’re the
reliable one. Your family is just one of
these many groups, and the role you play with them is one of your many roles.
Plus, your family is unlikely to reject you long
term. As long as you follow the family
rules when you’re with your family,
from established manners to birth order roles, this creates all the harmony a
family needs. Hence, it’s just not
important when you’re outside the home to honor your parents’ wishes when it
comes to the relationships, socialization and status you display with the rest
of the world.
To me, this really connected. I remember doing this as a child, playing different roles in different settings, and not
understanding why.
When asked, most people have very good friends they
could never imagine bringing together. They play different roles with these different friends. Bringing them together would create havoc in
their internal role system.
There are some people that are very consistent
whether they’re with their family or peer group. These people are far more likely to be a part
of tight-knit communities where their family and peer group share the same
values. For instance, they found less
role divergence in the personalities of people from ultra-orthodox religious
communities. Simply put, they play the
same role in the various groups because there is really just one group.
And this brings me to why I think this is good news
for parents. If JRH is right, certain
choices that parents do get to make, like your child’s schools, clubs and
neighborhood, are very important.
For me, this was a revelation. Previous to reading JRH, I believed that
parents who changed their child’s schools or clubs because the child was having a hard
time were molly-coddling their child.
Life isn’t fair, and a child might as well get used to it. But actually, making sure your child has a
healthy peer group is the most important decision you can make as a
parent.
As we saw in the last blog, being in a school or
neighborhood with good or bad peer influences has a bigger impact than anything
we do as parents. Dr Spock said
we should make child-centric decisions as parents, and it seems to me that he
was almost right. But it isn’t the daily
parenting technique or child discipline that needs to be
child-centered. It's the life choices that impact which peer group the child will experience.
This is what’s so wonderful about JRH. Parent the way you want to parent. Be disciplined or laissez-faire. Teach them good table manners or eat around
the television. Teach them to read or
play video games with them. Do whatever you
believe is the right thing to do, and relax.
You’re making the right decision.
You’re simply teaching them how to act around you.
But really think about the bigger adult decisions:
where you live and where they go to school.
If you make a bad choice, be prepared to change it. To your greatest ability, don’t allow finance
or convenience to keep you from putting your child around a group of peers that
help bring the best out of them.
My son was in an award-winning school, but doing
poorly. He had a few friends, and doing
ok academically, but it seemed obvious to us that he could do better. Before reading JRH I thought this was
probably good for him. Life isn’t fair,
and he would learn to toughen up.
After reading JRH we changed his school and watched
him blossom in a truly heart-warming way.
He made better friends, did well in sport and started achieving his
potential academically. The change
wasn’t convenient, nor financially easy, but I’m convinced it’s the right one
for him.
I hope this little blog helps you make whatever
decisions you need to make, and helps you relax about all the others.
