Talk:The Nurture Assumption

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Moved text from Judith Rich Harris to here. Keithmahoney 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragraph

"Some critics of Harris' book argue that she defines "nurture" differently than it is traditionally defined by psychologists talking about "nature and nurture." {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) These critics charge that "nurture" should include all the environmental inputs, and not just the parent/child relationship. Since contemporary American parents who send their children to conventional schools and allow them to spend hours in front of television and videogame screens have less time with their children than these other inputs do, naturally those other inputs would be likely to have a significant and perhaps larger effect than the parents."

That the environment considered shouldn't be limited to the nurture from the parents is precisely Harris's point. The criticism here seems to be purely semantic-- they want to insist that nurture is synonymous with environment. Of course, whether this is a valid argument doesn't matter, what matters is that its cited to a source. Can anyone find a source for this view? If not we should keep it removed.--Babank (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]