In the most recent issue of

the American Psychologist, the American Psychological

Association's journal, an article on parenting caught my

attention.

The authors of the research

article suggested that traditional views regarding the

importance of a parent's role in the formulation of a

child's world view have been overstated. These

researchers argued that social factors and personality,

along with parental influence, forms a child's view of

the world as she develops.

I recently withdrew my

membership from the APA after over 15 years in the

organization. Articles like this one heavily influenced

my decision.

Don't get me wrong. I don't

think that the authors were totally wrong in their

conclusions. In fact, one of the things I appreciate

about the APA is the rigorous process that one has to go

through in order to publish in their journal. My argument

is not with the findings, but with the presentation of

those findings.

The APA, along with a

number of other very liberal organizations around the

country, has purposefully set about to question and to

upset traditional thinking. There are some traditions

that need to change and I am not opposed to asking

important questions. The implication of this article is

that parents are not as critical in child development as

was once thought. However, in fact, this is not what the

data in the article showed.

What the researchers found

was that social and personality factors had a significant

role in the outcome of children who participated in their

study. The researchers propose that outcomes are not the

result of parenting alone. We have known that for years.

I have three children and

all three of them have had clearly different

personalities from birth. There is also no question that

our environment has a great influence on who we are and

how we behave. It is for that reason that conventional

wisdom has always told us to be careful of the friends we

keep.

The authors' proposal that

"a parent's role isn't as important as we used to

think," implies that we never considered there could

be other factors. In other words, they said that things

other than a child's parents influenced him and from that

they extrapolate that parents are not as important as we

used to think.

After carefully reading

this article, I did not see anything in it that

conflicted with "traditional wisdom." It is my

opinion that this organization and articles like this one

have as a part of their purpose to weaken what we

perceived as the traditional family and family values. In

today's culture, I think parents more often underestimate

the importance of their role rather than overestimate it.

Studies presented like this one perpetuate irresponsible

thinking.

The APA has a history of

manipulating what we in the mental health profession

consider "normal." For example, homosexuality

used to be considered a mental disorder. In the 1970s, a

vocal homosexual contingent within the organization

forced that language out of our diagnostic manuals.

In the past year the APA

actually published an article that was the first step in

normalizing pedophilia between consenting partners.

My ravings on the actions

of a professional organization actually have a purpose

for you. I encourage you to be very careful when you read

sound bites about studies like these. I believe that

people in general are smarter than they are given credit

for. I know you can see through the smoke, mirrors and

hidden agendas of organizations like the APA.

Do not discount all

research that contradicts your beliefs, nor should we

discount all research from the APA or any organization.

On the contrary, closed-minded thinking causes us to

stagnate. Rather, I propose that you read and analyze

this type of material critically, just as I would hope

you are doing with every article I write.

Critical thinking will keep

us honest.