I'm not trying to hurt anyone; I just don't see why you've singled out this one guy, who at least had a citation, for a lack of rigor.

Because 0% parental influence is a pretty extravagant claim.

It seems obvious to me that "environment" includes parental influence; your reading strikes me as eccentric.

No. The statement was that "parental influence accounts for 0%".

If parenting is a part of the environment, then that's not 0%.

The conclusion purposely mangles the numbers for the sake of sensationalism, and that is the kind of thing that gets picked up on and becomes myth.

Sorry, you are right; I got confused about the claims with the multiple threads of the discussion. You are right: Harris claims family is essentially irrelevant.

Nonetheless, I don't think it's fair to jump straight to "sensationalism" to explain why he has different findings than yours. Perhaps your sense of influencing your children is more illusory than you think. It wouldn't be the first time a widely-acknowledged phenomenon with children turned out to be in the imagination of parents (consider "sugar high," for instance, which does not really exist).

No mate, he's totally spinning the results to stir up a buzz. I'm not just speaking from my own lived experience either, I've an academic grounding in developmental psychology.

The influence of parents is very much a factor in development. Just other factors influence a lot more than other people might expect.

You're making assumptions I'm some sort of uneducated whimsical pixie-head and that's your failure. Not mine.

Why not lead with that instead of telling me how great anecdotal evidence is?