I just threw this book into my que at audible.com but, I found this review interesting. If you are a reader of Legacy Dad, none of these findings should surprise you.
Nutureshock Review
By Kay Hymowitz
For more than a century American parents—ever more distanced fromgrandmothers and suspicious of tradition—have looked to socialscience to explain their children to them. Thus they have gobbled upbooks and articles by experts who periodically deliver the latesttruths about child-rearing. Back in 1945, when Dr. Spock published his"Baby and Child Care," readers' devotion to expert opinion was sointense that he began his book with the reassuring words: "Trustyourself." Not that he believed it. The book was jammed with advice.
Now, in "NurtureShock," Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman survey thenewest new findings about child development. Little in the book is allthat shocking, but given our enthusiasm for turning tentative childresearch into settled policy, the studies that the authors discussare of more than passing interest.
A striking example is the latest research on self-esteem. As Mr.Bronson and Ms. Merryman remind us, the psychologist Nathaniel Brandonpublished a path-breaking paper in 1969 called "The Psychology ofSelf-Esteem" in which he argued that feelings of self-worth were a keyto success in life. The theory became a big hit in the nation'sschools; in the mid-1980s, the California Legislature even establisheda self-esteem task force. By now, there are 15,000 scholarly articleson the subject.
And what do they show? That high self-esteem doesn't improve grades,reduce anti-social behavior, deter alcohol drinking or do much ofanything good for kids. In fact, telling kids how smart they are can becounterproductive. Many children who are convinced that they arelittle geniuses tend not to put much effort into their work. Others aretroubled by the latent anxiety of adults who feel it necessary topraise them constantly.
Thebenefits of teaching tolerance and promoting diversity look equallyunimpressive in the current research. According to "NurtureShock," alot of well-meaning adult nostrums—"we're all friends," "we're allequal"—pass right over the heads of young children. Attempts toincrease racial sensitivity in older students can even lead tounintended consequences. One researcher found that "more diversitytranslates into more divisions between students." Another warns thattoo much discussion of past discrimination can make minority childrenover-reactive to perceived future slights. As for trying to increaseemotional intelligence, the education fad of the 1990s, it doesn't seemto promote "pro-social values" either. It turns out that bullies usetheir considerable EQ, as it is called, to control their peers.
Education policy makers will find more cause for embarrassment in"NurtureShock." Drop-out programs don't work. Neither do anti-drugprograms. The most popular of them, D.A.R.E (Drug Abuse ResistanceEducation), developed in 1983 by the Los Angeles Police Department,has become a more familiar sight in American schools than algebraclass. By 2000, 80% of American school districts were using D.A.R.E.materials in some form. Now, after extensive study, comes the news: Theprogram has no long-term, and only mild short-term, effects. Oh, andthose tests that school districts use to determine giftedness in youngchildren? They're just about useless. According to Mr. Bronson and Ms.Merryman, early IQ tests predict later achievement less than half thetime. Between ages 3 and 10, about two-thirds of children willexperience a rise or drop of 15 points or more.
You might assume from these examples that the authors want to makea point about our national gullibility in the face of faddish science.Unfortunately, they deconstruct yesterday's wisdom at the same timethat they embrace today's—even when research is on the order of"do-we-really-need-a-$50,000-study-to-tell-us-this?" or of dubiouspractical value. Kids lie, they inform us. In fact, 4-year-olds lieonce every hour. Still, Mr. Bronson and Ms. Merryman are impressed byresearch showing that "lying is an advanced skill," supposedlydemonstrating both social and cognitive sophistication.
As for teenagers, well, they lie too. Parents shouldn't worry aboutthem, though; they fib not because they want to get away with stuffthey shouldn't be doing but because they don't want to upset mom anddad. Depending on your point of view, you might not be surprised tolearn that permissive parents don't get more truth-telling from theirteens than stricter parents. In any event, teens like conflictbecause, it is now claimed, they see it as enhancing theirrelationships with their parents.
Given how often last year's science has become today's boondoggle,Mr. Bronson and Ms. Merryman's analysis would have benefited from adose of skepticism. Yes, social science has become more rigorouslyempirical in recent decades. A lot of the findings described in"NurtureShock" might even be true. But that doesn't mean that we havethe remotest idea how to translate such findings into constructiveparental behavior or effective public programs.
In a famous 1994 study described by the authors, researchersdiscovered that babies of professional parents were exposed to almostthree times the number of words as the babies of welfare parents.Parents took to buying $699 "verbal pedometers," a gadget that countsthe number of words their baby is hearing per hour. Now experts aremodifying the earlier findings. Turns out that it's not so much thenumber of words kids hear that matters but the responsiveness of adultsto a child's words and explorations. Shocked? I doubt it.
Ms. Hymowitz, a contributing editor of theManhattan Institute's City Journal, is the author of "Marriage andCaste in America" (Ivan R. Dee, 2006).
Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574371422231600220.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
![[book0826]](http://static1.squarespace.com/static/57bd06a7e3df28e77a38f48d/6431a1a42e41e674da9280d7/6431a4672e41e674da92e291/1680974951573/92eca-ed-ak065_book08_dv_20090825135634.jpg?format=original "[book0826]")
