My book's gotten a lot of feedback recently:
1.
Nicole Russell in the
Washington Times:This isn't your average parenting book spouting psychologist-laden
babble about the inner workings of the human psyche, inherent
selfishness and bearing children. Rather, Mr. Caplan, an economics
professor at George Mason University, is a father of three, including
twins, and he hopes to persuade interested parties that it's not only
better to have children in the first place, but to have lots, or at
least more than the number you originally were planning to have.
Mr. Caplan methodically and with a surprisingly cheerful, even humorous tone...
2.
Nicole Russell again, in the
Atlantic:
The secret joy of being a parent, Caplan argues, comes from
understanding the limited liability of parenting. Studies have found
that child-rearing is, if you can believe it, a little overrated. In
surveys of twins raised together and apart, behavioral scientists
consistently found that nature overpowered nurture in almost all
categories, from character and intelligence to happiness and health.
Once you accept that bad parenting won't always keep your kids from
being great (and good parenting might not make a difference!), it's
easier to relax and enjoy the state of being a parent.
3.
Janice D'Arcy, the
Washington Post's new parenting blogger:
Called the anti-Tiger mom
by many in the press, his data-heavy argument is that nurture counts
for very little in child-rearing. Our generation should relax our
standards for ourselves and our children. Instead, kick back and enjoy
parenting more and, this is the book-selling line: Have more children.
4.
Nick Schulz interviews me for
The American for Mother's Day.
SHARE
You should definitely try to do some joint promotion with Amy Chua by debating her. Maybe get Andrew Ferguson, who also has a parenting book out, to be your moderator. Go for "60 Minutes," "Oprah," and similar big time venues.
Why no UK kindle version?
You are just basking in being called the "Anti-Tiger Mom," aren't you? =D
Having seen your latest interview on AEI and having read Amy Chua's book, I'm not sure you're as far apart as you believe. It makes for good marketing, but Lenore Skenazy even said she and Chua have more in common than they do differences. While you may disagree with Chua on the long-term benefits for her style, I think you'd both agree that about the limits of long-term harm. And she states in her book that genetics played a large role in how her kids behave.
Bryan, I imagine you know, but a reasonably sized, if shortish interview with you appeared in the Globe and Mail (Canada's newspaper of record) today. It didn't indicate it was a reprint.
I have to agree with Steve here. A debate between the two of you and Ms. Chua would have the potential to be very entertaining indeed.
If you really want to push your book, that would be the way to go.