Medical Researcher "Startled and Disappointed" by Plagiarist Dobson
Another researcher is blowing the whistle on James Dobson and Time magazine.
In his article about Mary Cheney's baby, Dobson quoted Kyle Pruett, MD, of the Yale School of Medicine, in this way:
Listen, this is funny.
I just discovered that Dobson plagiarized this.
Yeah, he took it from his own Family Blah Blah web site: HERE.
Listen to what writer Glenn T. Stanton said there:
Like a lazy seventh-grader, James Dobson changes a few words and calls it his own. Amazing.
If Time asked you to write something for them, wouldn't you take a few minutes to make up your own words?
But that wasn't even why I was looking at this. Earlier today I reported about a social psychologist slash feminist who wrote Dobson a letter telling him to stop quoting her. She wasn't happy about it.
This afternoon, Wayne Besen has posted a letter by a second researcher cited by Dobson, Dr. Pruett:
I am really heartened to see the researchers fighting back. Too often these nutty guys find a line of a study that they can distort to serve their purposes, and they go around sounding like they know what they're talking about. This isn't how science works, and it isn't how intelligent people work.
In his article about Mary Cheney's baby, Dobson quoted Kyle Pruett, MD, of the Yale School of Medicine, in this way:
The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because "fathers do not mother." Psychology Today explained in 1996 that "fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children." A father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate, and vice versa. Two Mommies Is One Too Many
Listen, this is funny.
I just discovered that Dobson plagiarized this.
Yeah, he took it from his own Family Blah Blah web site: HERE.
Listen to what writer Glenn T. Stanton said there:
The fathering difference is explained by fathering scholar Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads matter simply because “fathers do not mother." Psychology Today explains, “Fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.” A father, as a male parent, brings unique contributions to the job of parenting that a mother cannot.
Like a lazy seventh-grader, James Dobson changes a few words and calls it his own. Amazing.
If Time asked you to write something for them, wouldn't you take a few minutes to make up your own words?
But that wasn't even why I was looking at this. Earlier today I reported about a social psychologist slash feminist who wrote Dobson a letter telling him to stop quoting her. She wasn't happy about it.
This afternoon, Wayne Besen has posted a letter by a second researcher cited by Dobson, Dr. Pruett:
Dr. Dobson,
I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission. You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, “What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.”
Kyle Pruett, M.D.
Yale School of Medicine
Yale Professor Says James Dobson ‘Cherry Picked’ His Research In Time Magazine Article
I am really heartened to see the researchers fighting back. Too often these nutty guys find a line of a study that they can distort to serve their purposes, and they go around sounding like they know what they're talking about. This isn't how science works, and it isn't how intelligent people work.
posted by JimK at 4:56 PM
25 Comments:
Another researcher shocked, just shocked that, when he wrote a book about why fathers are as important as mothers, someone might assume that meant that he thought both were important. Dobson's article, by the way, didn't mention gay fathers. He was speaking about why a family headed by two lesbians is not ideal.
And, again, the complainer doesn't explain how Dobson misused his research. You'd think, if they had a real gripe, They could be more specific.
I think this circle-the-wagons mentality explains alot.
I'm going back for my doctorate. No one told me I could just rearrange words and they'd be mine. I'm sure I could do my doctoral thesis on someone else's work - doncha think?
Is this going to be the purge of Colorado Springs? First, Ted; now, Jim.
i say that every time i read what you posted, anonymous.
read it again. Dr. Pruett said Dobson cherry picked his research. Seems to me you should trust the author of the research rather than the person using it.
Dr. Dobson also lifts the stuff about Ms. Gilligan research almost verbatim. I don't think Stanton minds, especially since Dobson's organization paid his salary to write it. They work together and share brainstorming about how to approach certain topics. Not uncommon.
Anyway, here's some more of Stanton's great piece about the preferability and vitalness of dual gender parenting. Those of you that think Focus on the Family is bigoted might be interested in the suggestion in the middle of the article that if two lesbian have a kid, a good idea would be to have a gay father be the sperm donor and then have him and his companion move in to provide both gender influences on the child. Wild, huh?:
"The following are some of the most compelling ways mother and father involvement make a positive difference in a child’s life. The first benefit is the difference itself.
Mothers and Fathers Parent Differently
This difference provides an important diversity of experiences for children. Dr. Pruett explains that fathers have a distinct style of communication and interaction with children. Infants, by 8 weeks, can tell the difference between a male or female interacting with them. Stanford psychologist Eleanor Maccoby, in her book The Two Sexes, explains mothers and fathers respond differently to infants. Mothers are more likely to provide warm, nurturing care for a crying infant. This diversity in itself provides children with a broader, richer experience of contrasting relational interactions —more so than for children who are raised by only one gender. Whether they realize it or not, children are learning at earliest age, by sheer experience, that men and women are different and have different ways of dealing with life, other adults and their children.
Mothers and Fathers Play Differently
Fathers tend to play with, and mothers tend to care for, children. While both mothers and fathers are physical, fathers are physical in different ways.
Fathers tickle more, they wrestle, and they throw their children in the air. Fathers chase their children, sometimes as playful, scary “monsters.” Fathers are louder at play, while mothers are quieter. Mothers cuddle babies, and fathers bounce them. Fathers roughhouse while mothers are gentle. One study found that 70 percent of father-infant games were more physical and action oriented while only 4 percent of mother-infant play was like this. Fathers encourage competition; mothers encourage equity. One style encourages independence while the other encourages security.
This dynamic also exhibits itself in "gay" households. USA Today featured an experimental parenting relationship of four gay adults, two homosexual men and two lesbian women. One of the women is the birth mom, while the men are the biological fathers of the children through artificial insemination.
One of the biological fathers believes the birth mother has a tendency to "pamper" the three-year-old boy "too much." "When he falls down, she wants to rush over and make sure he is OK. I know he will be fine."
Fathering expert John Snarey explains that children who roughhouse with their fathers learn that biting, kicking and other forms of physical violence are not acceptable. They learn self-control by being told when “enough is enough” and when to “settle down.” Girls and boys both learn a healthy balance between timidity and aggression. Children need mom's softness as well as dad’s roughhousing. Both provide security and confidence in their own ways by communicating love and physical intimacy.
Fathers Push Limits; Mothers Encourage Security
Go to any playground and listen to the parents. Who is encouraging their kids to swing or climb just a little higher, ride their bike just a little faster, throw just a little harder? Who is yelling, “slow down, not so high, not so hard!” Of course, fathers encourage children to take chances and push limits and mothers protect and are more cautious. And this difference can cause disagreement between mom and dad on what is best for the child.
But the difference is essential for children. Either of these parenting styles by themselves can be unhealthy. One can tend toward encouraging risk without consideration of consequences. The other tends to avoid risk, which can fail to build independence, confidence and progress. Joined together, they keep each other in balance and help children remain safe while expanding their experiences and confidence.
Mothers and Fathers Communicate Differently
A major study showed that when speaking to children, mothers and fathers are different. Mothers will simplify their words and speak on the child’s level. Men are not as inclined to modify their language for the child.
Mother’s way facilitates immediate communication. Father’s way challenges the child to expand her vocabulary and linguistic skills, an important building block of academic success.
Father’s talk tends to be more brief, directive, and to the point. It also makes greater use of subtle body language and facial expressions. Mothers tend to be more descriptive, personal and verbally encouraging. Children who do not have daily exposure to both will not learn how to understand and use both styles of conversation as they grow. These boys and girls will be at a disadvantage because they will experience these different ways of communicating in relationships with teachers, bosses and other authority figures.
Mothers and Fathers Discipline Differently
Educational psychologist Carol Gilligan tells us that fathers stress justice, fairness and duty (based on rules), while mothers stress sympathy, care and help (based on relationships). Fathers tend to observe and enforce rules systematically and sternly, which teach children the objectivity and consequences of right and wrong. Mothers tend toward grace and sympathy in the midst of disobedience, which provide a sense of hopefulness. Again, either of these by themselves is not good, but together, they create a healthy, proper balance."
"Dr. Pruett said Dobson cherry picked his research."
Well, how? The point Dobson used the research for is indicated in the title of the book. Can you cherry pick a thesis statement?
More crap from FooF, Anon? We're really not interested in the spin over here.
You should really learn some academic ettiquette. ALWAYS cite your source:
http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000001142.cfm
"You should really learn some academic ettiquette. ALWAYS cite your source"
If you were paying attention, Jim already linked the article in his post, dense-o-matic. That's how I got to it.
"We're really not interested in the spin over here."
Yeah, alot of spin. Dobson paid someone to write an article and now TTF accuses him of plagiarism for using it. Does the President plagiarize if he doesn't write his own speeches? For all you know, the article was edited by Dobson, co-authored or, even, actually written by Dobson. Both the article and the article were products of the same place.
And the other spin? Oh yeah, a guy wrote a book saying both a father and mother is important for child development. Now that he sees that that means that gay marriage would not be ideal, and he wouldn't be supporting some cause de jour, so he says, "never mind!".
I think it's obvious who's "spinning".
here is some more plagiarism in the article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,15684 ...
According to educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty. Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences....
http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/marriage/A000002226.cfm
Educational psychologist Carol Gilligan tells us that fathers stress justice, fairness and duty (based on rules), while mothers stress sympathy, care and help (based on relationships). Fathers tend to observe and enforce rules systematically and sternly, which teach children the objectivity and consequences of right and wrong. Mothers tend toward grace and sympathy in the midst of disobedience, which provide a sense of hopefulness. Again, either of these by themselves is not good, but together, they create a healthy, proper balance.
I'm gonna be interested to see how many different ways Anon can rationalize this.
That's two.
(Hint for #3: Anon, maybe God spoke to both of them and told them the same thing... I'd try that one if I were you.)
JimK
Hmmm...two researchers find that both genders are vital for child development and now that national attention has been focused on what that means for gay parenting, they are backtracking. Yet, they are at pain to tell us why, other than peer pressure, that they feel gays are an exception to the rule.
Someone's rationalizing alright.
Thanks for keeping the focus on these two!
Anonymous, "Focus on the Family's" speculation about differences in gender making a difference in children is just that, speculation. The proof is in the pudding, the children themselves. Those raised by gay parents do just as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. The overwhelming evidence shows this and all the major physical and mental health organizations support gay parenting and adoption.
Pruett and Gilligan are the ones who know what their work means, that they say "Focus on the Family" got it wrong is the final word on the proper interpretation of it.
How dense are you, Randi? Dobson noted that Pruitt says father are vital for child development. Pruitt doesn't refute this but instead quotes his book saying: “What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.”
Yet, Dobson's point was not about the adequacy of gay fathers but about the lack of them in a lesbian "comradeship".
Pruitt shows that his concern is not refuting Dobson but justifying his book to the gay community. He doesn't want to become their target. Who would? They have a tendency to get nasty.
Here's an idea. Since the religious fundamentalists are very concerned about the state of marriage today, and want to desperately preserve heterosexual identity and behavior, and since we have just learned that male circumcision reduces the risk of hetero HIV transmission, we should help them out and start a campaign to the Board of Ed to require all male freshman high school students to be circumcised.
Anonymous said "Dobson noted that Pruitt says father are vital for child development"
Anonymous nowhere did I see Pruett make that statement. What he did say is that there is nothing in his research that supports the conclusion that gay and lesbian parenting should be opposed.
Dobson's contention that heterosexual parents are necessary means he's just as opposed to gay fathers parenting as he is to gay mothers parenting. Pruett's statement "that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers." is perfectly applicable to Dobson's opposition to gay parenting in general. Dobson may have been refering to one specific instance of lesbian parenting, but he was opposing gay fathers parenting as well. Your the dense one if you can't see that.
"Anonymous said "Dobson noted that Pruitt says father are vital for child development"
Anonymous nowhere did I see Pruett make that statement. What he did say is that there is nothing in his research that supports the conclusion that gay and lesbian parenting should be opposed."
Earth to Randi
Earth to Randi
Are you reading us?
here's the title of Pruitt's book:
"Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child"
"essential" and "vital": these are two words we use on this planet that mean pretty much the same thing
over and out
"we should help them out and start a campaign to the Board of Ed to require all male freshman high school students to be circumcised."
No need. NIH is way ahead of you.
Anonymous, there is no way you can equate Dobson's misunderstanding of Pruett's work with Pruett's knowledge of his own work and Pruett is clear, there is nothing in his research that supports the conclusion that gay and lesbian parenting should be opposed. Pruett is in agreement with the vast majority of social science research and all the professional authoritative bodies.
assertion without basis, Randi
You know what I love best about Gilligan and Pruett is how they INSIST that Dobson cease and desist using their writings! That just cracks me up...INSIST! Wow, that must have Dr. James Dobson shaking and quaking down there in Colorado Springs.
Dobson might have a PhD in psychology, but he also adheres to radical right theology and freely admits he wants to play a large role in the American political process. Dobson's scientific ethics are colored by his religious beliefs and his desire to influence the political sphere. His scientific ethics are therefore suspect.
Pruett said it best himself when he told Dobson, "You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles."
PTA
"Pruett said it best himself when he told Dobson, "You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles.""
The point Dobson took from this guy's book is the point of the book, not some low-lying fruit. Pruett is now trying to mislead to avoid being on a side of a debate he doesn't want to be on..
The only one who's misleading is Dobson. That's why Pruett, the man who wrote the book, wrote a letter correcting Dobson's blatant falsehoods.
"The only one who's misleading is Dobson. That's why Pruett, the man who wrote the book, wrote a letter correcting Dobson's blatant falsehoods."
Name one falsehood Dobson mentioned about Pruett's book.
Anonymous, your claims to know what the book says better than the author are laughable. Pruett is clear, there is nothing in his research that supports the conclusion that gay and lesbian parenting should be opposed. Pruett is in agreement with the vast majority of social science research and all the professional authoritative bodies. Everything Dobson looks at goes through his bigot filter first. Any reality that isn't anti-gay gets discarded without consideration - much like you do as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home