The Nurture Assumption
I reckon that Harris is making a valuable point re the powerful influence of group socialisation, but is overstating her case against parental influence. If I've got time, I'll see what others say. Here's one short rebuttal: a critique from Jerome Kagan. And here's a much longer one from Mary Eberstadt, who has both kudos and criticisms for Harris. On the latter, she agrees with me that, when it comes to scientific standards, Harris is quite lenient on research that supports her position (eg ev psych) but much stricter on research that goes against it. This causes the whole argument to teeter a bit too close to polemic or advocacy for my taste.
On the whole, my biggest problem with her argument is that she seems to be saying that if parents don't have a lot of effect on a kid's personality - and maybe they don't - then they don't have a lot of effect on the kid and his/her life. A personality is not a life. Her second daughter may have been rebellious and non-academic, but that doesn't mean that having two loving parents didn't shape her life and improve her chances. Throughout the book, Harris conflates effect on personality with effect on one's life; this is a very big step too far, it seems to me.