long ass day
but not nearly as long as it could have been. i decided not to stay in the library for three hours tonight even though i wont be able to use the library tomorrow on account of school being closed.
so i went to the orthopedic guy this morning. he poked around with my elbow and came to the conclusion that i have m..something something...itis, which is just a big fancy word for tennis elbow, which basically means that something in my elbow is inflammed. so basically i get to keep taking 800 mg of ibuprofen three times a day with meals and ice it (but no longer than ten minutes because there's a nerve there and then my hand will start going numb). and because alex the girl was working at UHS today she and the doctor guy were making fun of me...damn you car doors!
then i met with dr. jordan and talked about how horrible that stupid book is that i had to read...which reminds me i still need to post my detailed analysis about how much it sucked.
then i had health psyc and social psyc and i fell asleep in both of them.
then i finished reading for the grad class.
then i went to the grad class.
the end.
So i dont know why i feel the need to post, in detail, how much this book sucked ass, because most people prolly wont even read this or care...but anyway:
Harris, Judith. The Nuture Assumption. The Free Press: New York, 1998.
so basically this woman is knocking the idea that what doesnt come from genes (Nature) comes from parents (Nuture). herein lies the first problem. the "nuture assumption" as she calls it is something that all psychologists believe in. it's the fact that your parents are the only thing that is under the title of "nuture." first off, that is not true. it's been my understanding in all of my psyc class that nature is defined as genetics and nuture is defined as everything else.
so the assumption that she is trying to discredit throughout the whole book doesnt even exist.
i understand that maybe there hasnt been enough research done on peer effects but that's because it's really complicated and hard research to do. which is why there isnt any research to base her theory on.
she does however, make some good points like on p. 12 when she says "The nuture assumption is based on a particular model of family life: that of a typical middle-class North American or European family." now this is true. there hasnt been enough research separating out cultural influences on child rearing and adjustment. however in the next breath she is criticizing what she refers to as the "divide and conquer" style of data analysis. this involves breaking the data down by gender and by culture and by SES...etc. to find differences. because there are true differences for males and females, there are true differences for different cultures...and she keeps criticizing the fact that all people are lumped together in studies but she also criticizes the fact that we break apart data looking for differences. however right after she makes a good point she reverts back to the cynical, arrogant writing style that characterizes the whole book and then that just pisses me off.
she details the problems of correlational research and how allpsychologists think that correlational research implies causation. but all the research that she mentions that supports her theory is correlational. she also focuses too much on the extremes and knocks the fact that our correlations are never 100% (but neither are hers). she also metions the fact that shared environmental effects are not important...duh.
she also kept bringing up Watson and other old studies that have since been discredited.
she also goes off on long tangents about traditional societies, evolution, and monkeys.
she also uses Cinderella as an example of how her theory works.
she hardly ever cites the research correctly. dates are always missing and she refers to the infamous "researcher" many, many times. including right after she made her biggest point...the main "evidence" that she bases her theory on...(drum roll please): the FACT that "short children are considerably more likely than tall ones to suffer from low-self esteem and a host of other psychological problems." (p. 180)
yea...ok
and now i'm dont bitching.
so i went to the orthopedic guy this morning. he poked around with my elbow and came to the conclusion that i have m..something something...itis, which is just a big fancy word for tennis elbow, which basically means that something in my elbow is inflammed. so basically i get to keep taking 800 mg of ibuprofen three times a day with meals and ice it (but no longer than ten minutes because there's a nerve there and then my hand will start going numb). and because alex the girl was working at UHS today she and the doctor guy were making fun of me...damn you car doors!
then i met with dr. jordan and talked about how horrible that stupid book is that i had to read...which reminds me i still need to post my detailed analysis about how much it sucked.
then i had health psyc and social psyc and i fell asleep in both of them.
then i finished reading for the grad class.
then i went to the grad class.
the end.
So i dont know why i feel the need to post, in detail, how much this book sucked ass, because most people prolly wont even read this or care...but anyway:
Harris, Judith. The Nuture Assumption. The Free Press: New York, 1998.
so basically this woman is knocking the idea that what doesnt come from genes (Nature) comes from parents (Nuture). herein lies the first problem. the "nuture assumption" as she calls it is something that all psychologists believe in. it's the fact that your parents are the only thing that is under the title of "nuture." first off, that is not true. it's been my understanding in all of my psyc class that nature is defined as genetics and nuture is defined as everything else.
so the assumption that she is trying to discredit throughout the whole book doesnt even exist.
i understand that maybe there hasnt been enough research done on peer effects but that's because it's really complicated and hard research to do. which is why there isnt any research to base her theory on.
she does however, make some good points like on p. 12 when she says "The nuture assumption is based on a particular model of family life: that of a typical middle-class North American or European family." now this is true. there hasnt been enough research separating out cultural influences on child rearing and adjustment. however in the next breath she is criticizing what she refers to as the "divide and conquer" style of data analysis. this involves breaking the data down by gender and by culture and by SES...etc. to find differences. because there are true differences for males and females, there are true differences for different cultures...and she keeps criticizing the fact that all people are lumped together in studies but she also criticizes the fact that we break apart data looking for differences. however right after she makes a good point she reverts back to the cynical, arrogant writing style that characterizes the whole book and then that just pisses me off.
she details the problems of correlational research and how allpsychologists think that correlational research implies causation. but all the research that she mentions that supports her theory is correlational. she also focuses too much on the extremes and knocks the fact that our correlations are never 100% (but neither are hers). she also metions the fact that shared environmental effects are not important...duh.
she also kept bringing up Watson and other old studies that have since been discredited.
she also goes off on long tangents about traditional societies, evolution, and monkeys.
she also uses Cinderella as an example of how her theory works.
she hardly ever cites the research correctly. dates are always missing and she refers to the infamous "researcher" many, many times. including right after she made her biggest point...the main "evidence" that she bases her theory on...(drum roll please): the FACT that "short children are considerably more likely than tall ones to suffer from low-self esteem and a host of other psychological problems." (p. 180)
yea...ok
and now i'm dont bitching.