Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the Science of Affection 
asked by trailrider on November 12, 2006 9:19 PM
We take it for granted today that babies need love. But less than a century ago, psychologists warned women against showing their children "too much affection"-predicting dire consequences ranging from deadly disease to sexual dysfunction in adulthood. The story of how this conventional wisdom was finally shattered takes us into the life and the laboratory of Harry Harlow-workaholic, alcoholic, brilliant and brave, capable of caustic wit and cruelty-and into an era in which the scientific establishment was just beginning to understand the power of human emotion.
Reviews
0%
0%
This book was in great shape and is an excellent read for those who want to understand
reviewed by osx on November 25, 2006 1:20 AM
0%
0%
This is one of the most interesting and well written books I've ever read on this or any similar topic. To anyone who studies or has studied attachment, Blum offers an amazing look at how this early research changed the face of psychology. To anyone who has read countless poorly written descriptions of boring research studies, this book is an oasis.
I don't believe Blum has portrayed Harlow through rose-colored glasses. On the contrary, anyone reading this book might even wonder whether Harlow's neglect of his own children was a good thing, given his lack of compassion and indifference toward the suffering he caused. My copy is well-worn and has been loaned out many times. I highly recommend this book.
I don't believe Blum has portrayed Harlow through rose-colored glasses. On the contrary, anyone reading this book might even wonder whether Harlow's neglect of his own children was a good thing, given his lack of compassion and indifference toward the suffering he caused. My copy is well-worn and has been loaned out many times. I highly recommend this book.
reviewed by scoobie on November 27, 2006 5:08 PM
0%
0%
This is an extremely interesting book in terms of underlining how damaging scientific fads can be. The early twentieth century fad of data and cleanliness may well have led to the deaths many children as cleanliness was preferred over attention.
Unfortunately, Harry Harlow is less interesting, and provides an abominable contrast to the subject. Harlow ignores both wives and his children in search for - as he wrote in his school's yearbook - 'fame'. He becomes a chain-smoking alcoholic. Bizarrely, Blum emphasises Harlow's visionary understanding of love with, at times, an almost 'here comes superman' manner. She appears incapable of reconciling her argument that Harlow is the scientist of love with the fact that he ignored his wives and all his children!
If anything, I read the book as reflecting one man's selfish, desperate desire for achievement and fame. Thanks to his interest in monkeys, he and his students seemed to fall over the answer. Not exactly visionary.
A good read though, reflecting the pitfalls of faddish thinking, and also how scientific discoveries (if the fact that a child needs its mother is a discovery) occur. The book also reflects how difficult it can be to refute incorrect arguments.
Unfortunately, Harry Harlow is less interesting, and provides an abominable contrast to the subject. Harlow ignores both wives and his children in search for - as he wrote in his school's yearbook - 'fame'. He becomes a chain-smoking alcoholic. Bizarrely, Blum emphasises Harlow's visionary understanding of love with, at times, an almost 'here comes superman' manner. She appears incapable of reconciling her argument that Harlow is the scientist of love with the fact that he ignored his wives and all his children!
If anything, I read the book as reflecting one man's selfish, desperate desire for achievement and fame. Thanks to his interest in monkeys, he and his students seemed to fall over the answer. Not exactly visionary.
A good read though, reflecting the pitfalls of faddish thinking, and also how scientific discoveries (if the fact that a child needs its mother is a discovery) occur. The book also reflects how difficult it can be to refute incorrect arguments.
reviewed by literary on November 28, 2006 5:57 PM