Jonah Lehrer’s new book, mentioned by Tyler Cowen.
Spare me comments about Lehrer’s past.
The central theme of the book is “attachment theory,” which is on the “nurture” side of the “nature vs. nurture” debate. For example, Lehrer suggests that the Flynn effect may be due to better parenting practices, with parents doing a better job of making their children feel securely attached.
This leaves Bryan Caplan with three possible reactions.
1. Lehrer is wrong. The evidence Lehrer cites for attachment theory consists of observational studies that do not establish causality and “natural experiments” that are unconvincing for other reasons.
2. Lehrer is right, but it is only through the attachment process that nurture affects children. Nothing else that parents do matters.
3. Lehrer is right, and perhaps this means that other parental behaviors matter also. Caplan’s world view has to change.
I haven’t read the Lehrer book, but my inclination would be toward #1. Adoption studies (adopted children don’t end up much like genetically unrelated siblings or their adoptive parents) has seemed to me to be pretty solid evidence that family environment really doesn’t matter very much (except when the family situation is highly dysfunctional).
I not sure there’s any contradiction here. Even the most extreme naturist would admit that you have to feed your children if they’re going to be successful in life. I haven’t read the book but the first two reviews I found seem to sum it up as ” a child is helped the most if they are in a positive atmosphere” and “Being a great parent is less work and more fun than you think—so instead of struggling to change your children, you can safely relax and enjoy your journey together” both seem to say that you should still be doing that stuff that creates attachment.
“Being a great parent is less work and more fun than you think—so instead of struggling to change your children, you can safely relax and enjoy your journey together”
Hilarious.
Once I realized that most of parenting is getting your kids to be insignificantly different from average, I decided the statistics were out the window.
Does Bryan Caplan’s wife work? I’m like a lawyer. I always know the answer to my question before I ask it. But I never actually do research.
Ron Unz commented that, “It really seems that in recent years a remarkable fraction of our most influential public intellectuals have come from families with seemingly hereditary mental illness… Maybe that explains some of the odder aspects of our current society…”
I would add that a remarkable fraction of elite authors also tend to recount truly awful parents and childhoods – full of traumas, abuses, and hardships – and ones they couldn’t wait to escape.
Now, clearly all that has to be taken with a grain of salt because these people are in the business of telling captivating and dramatic tales. But then again normal people are apt to not touch too much on the ugly subject either, so it’s hard to put ones finger on that pulse. And this is hardly a sophisticated and rigorous study, true. But still, Caplan’s thesis that the prime factor correlated with success is the inherited genetic endowment of human capital accounts well for all these cases.