I am not at all surprised at the publication of something that seems so poorly vetted. This is why ONE publication on a finding is "interesting" and five begin to be "convincing."
The social science disciplines all too often train people to look at correlation and assume causative linkages, and the physical sciences tend to train people to avoid that very natural human impulse at all costs. <SIGH>
I particularly want to 'me2' these two points. I think they should be taught to every high school level student, along with the finer points of why the scientific method is so beloved by it's followers, even with all the flawed humans who use it.
When I read Freeman's book, I was struck by all the 'association - causation' assumptions. She sure did find plenty of bad parenting amoung parents of gifted kids back in the 1970, but she never gets that the parents themselves are most likely gifted and grew up in even worse circumstances! And how difficult to raise would a child have had to be to drive a parent to seek identification in England in the 1970?
Remember the story of all those Mom's of kids with autism who got told that they were 'refridgerator moms' who caused their kid's behavior because they were cold and detached. Nowadays the causation arrow points 180 degrees in the opposite direction - raising an autistic kid without support is seen to cause moms to become cold and detached.
Live and learn -
Grinity
