Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T01:32:31.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking Born to Rebel Seriously: The Need for Independent Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Frederic Townsend
Frederic Townsend*
Affiliation:
Lake Bluff, Illinois, USA
Get access

Extract

My thanks to the commentators for their thoughtful analyses. I will respond to their comments below. I should point out that under the format for this roundtable discussion, I have not yet seen Frank Sulloway's response to my article. Any reply I might have to his response will therefore have to come later.

Type
Roundtable Response
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , September 2000 , pp. 205 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blanchard, R. (1997). “Birth Order and Sibling Sex Ratio in Homosexual versus Heterosexual Males and Females.” Annual Review of Sex Research 8:27–67.Google Scholar
Ernst, C. and Angst, J. (1983). Birth Order: Its Influence on Personality. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Freese, J., Powell, B., and Steelman, L.C. (1999). “Rebel without a Cause or Effect: Birth Order and Social Attitudes.” American Sociological Review 64:207–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilanshah, B. (2000). Correspondence, Gilanshah, B., Assistant General Counsel, National Science Foundation, to Congressman John E. Porter (November 14).Google Scholar
Harris, J.R. (1998). The Nurture Assumption. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Harris, J.R. (2000). “Context-Specific Learning, Personality, and Birth Order.” Currrent Directions in Psychological Science 9:174–77.Google Scholar
Modell, J. (1997). “Family Niche and Intellectual Bent.” Science 275 (January 31):624–25.Google Scholar
Rejai, M. and Phillips, K. (1988). Loyalists and Revolutionaries: Political Leaders Compared. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Rodgers, J.L., Cleveland, H.H., van den Oord, E., and Rowe, D.C. (2000). “Resolving the Debate over Birth Order, Family Size, and Intelligence.” American Psychologist 55:599–612.Google Scholar
Shermer, M. (1996). “History at the Crossroads: Can History Be a Science? Can It Afford Not to Be?” Skeptic 4 (4):58–67.Google Scholar
Shermer, M. (1999). “The Measure of a Life: Carl Sagan and the Science of Biography.” Skeptic 7 (4):32–39.Google Scholar
Simonton, D.K. (1997). “Evolution, Personality, and History.” American Journal of Psychology 110:457–61.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1991). “Modeling Responses to Scientific Innovation.” National Science Foundation grant proposal. Proposal No. DIR-9112305. Grant No. DIR 912305, approved December 7.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1995). “Birth Order and Evolutionary Psychology: A Meta-Analytic Overview.” Psychological Inquiry 6:75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1996). Born To Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1997). Born To Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives. Paperback edition, with revisions. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1998). “Birth Order and the Nurture Misassumption: A Reply to Judith Harris.” EDGE (www.edge.org).Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1999). “Birth Order.” In Runco, M.A. and Pritzker, S. (eds), Encyclopedia of Creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar