Yeah, it's something I'm really interested in as a general concept. I REALLY want to read "The Blank Slate." (I think it's out in paperback now.) I have always leaned toward nurture, because I am SO different from my parents in so many ways and was "nurtured" by a lot of people in addition to them (hmm, that may be part of the answer to my earlier question), but I have been astonished with the sozlet and how she has been such an identifiable personality from day one, in ways that surprise me but are consistent. And from my current perspective as a parent, looking back on stories of my own childhood, realizing that I was also a consistent personality from the beginning. (Which contradicts... I'm giving myself a headache. Off to do something useful...
)
Thinking about social mammals and, you know, various stuff, I really think that brain chemistry early in life influences patterns later in life -- not just on big things like learning curves and what not, but second to second emotional responses, as well. I mean, imprinting seems pretty basic in my dogs, and I doubt it is much different for me -- I was "feeling good" (i.e., lots of good neurtransmitters in my brain, parasympathetic nervous system in control) when I heard this sound, so this sound makes me feel good now.
I feel like i'm muddling the obvious, of course, and these cues can be so perverse in real life (think fetishization).
Gotta go take a test. Cheers...
Soz- I have always been astonished at how people tend to take one side or another in the nature/nurture issue. To me it has always been very obvious. Whether it is personality or propensity towards illness, both genetics AND environment impact upon an individual.
I think that your experience with the sozlet bears it out. If you have ever peeked into a hospital nursery, you can easily discern the differences in temperaments among neonates.
I have read studies of identical twins separated at birth and reunited in adulthood. In many cases, their personalities, tastes, likes and dislikes were surprisingly similar.
A word on emotional stablity. Everyone--including die-hard Politically Correct Experts--would agree that some children are less emotionally stable than "average"?
Why is it so difficult to assume that some children are more emotionally stable than "average"?
I'll admit, before my second son was born, I was hoping for a girl. I soothed my momentary disappointment by assuring myself that I was already an expert on the ways of little boys, birth to 17 months.
Some expert! Children are individuals and individuals are individualistic.
Many years ago I read about a hypothetical "survivor gene" which enabled kids born into poverty with indifferent--even hostile--parents who overcame impoverishment and accomplished wonderful things.
"Happiness set points" are perfectly logical, a basic variable in the genetic lottery.
Along the lines of set points, and of BPB's "no" -- we've all really only go our own experiences on which to judge other people's. The worst moment of my life, whenever it may happen, will still be the worst moment of my life, even if it wouldn't crack the top 100 of somebody else's. Likewise for best experiences...
Some great discussion here! I'd say my life has been easy. Certainly my childhood was. But, my sister had the same upbringing and has a stack of chips on each shoulder. So, maybe there was a significant difference in the way in which we each were raised, but I don't think so (we've only a 3 year age difference). Could birth order play a part?
I agree with early childhood experience setting up not only the brain chemistery, but also thought processes. But, that still doesn't excuse some dumbass from leaving her 2 year old alone for 3 weeks.
littlek wrote:Some great discussion here! I'd say my life has been easy. Certainly my childhood was. But, my sister had the same upbringing and has a stack of chips on each shoulder. So, maybe there was a significant difference in the way in which we each were raised, but I don't think so (we've only a 3 year age difference). Could birth order play a part?
I think birth order would make some difference and even the number of siblings. When something happens to the younger sibling the older ones are more likely to understand the situation better than the younger one is when something happens to an older sibling.
Quote:But, that still doesn't excuse some dumbass from leaving her 2 year old alone for 3 weeks.
I go along with that!
If they're going to die, they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population.
The concept of "resilience" may be germane to this discussion - it is the word that is most often used in resdearch into this sort of thing - ie why one person can survive a very difficult childhood/life fairly well, while another crumbles. Heaps of studies of this now.
Summary of my knowledge of the field - and this will change, of course - seems that the resilient kids have, somewhere, found ENOUGH love and support to establish some sort of secure base, somewhere...or have had sufficiently loving experiences later in life - people like aunts, uncles, child-care workers, grannies, siblings, teachers, friends, lovers, even employers can be of great assistance in this where the parents are unable to provide.
Obviously, things like intelligence and physical health are a boon - as is good child care, teachers, social networks of many kinds, talent and recognition of such etc.
The bad news is, early neglect, abuse etc has real physical and neurological effects - whether the effects of this are undoable in severe cases is moot - although there is evidence that a long-term (more than two years) therapeutic relationship is helpful, for example.
Your whingers? They would be seen to have a 'preoccupied' adult attachment style!
Easy life? Time brings trauma to most of us, sooner or later!
I think my life has been pretty easy - compared with the overwhelming majority of people on this planet.
Phoenix - part of the argument is that what gives the resilience is the PRESENCE of the love, somewhere - ie it is cause, not effect. Doubtless this is only a part of the story, though.
Certainly, some babies have good love-evoking skills - though any baby will give up, or become rejecting, given time.
dlowan- I hear what you are saying, but I am wondering. Some children have this ability to access and cultivate this love, while others ignore or reject it. What makes the difference?
Sounds like trust issues to me: i.e., I accepted love from this other person, and they hurt me, so I don't trust you. Forgive my ongoing anthropomorhpism, but this is so easy to see in dogs.
Set a perfect world and it would throw the human off balance.
easy, trauma-free life?
are you nuts? or just having a bad moment.....
Hey, Soz and all. I have read every post here with great interest, and I do believe that John Kennedy said it best:
When we have children, they become hostages to fate.
Hey, patio. "Bah; humbug"...
I feel that the one thing crucial to child rearing is allowing children to deal with decision making. Teachers are guides, and parents are guides, and in between there's love. No sense in trying to define "love" either, cause we all know what it is.
As to the child who was left alone for three weeks, I am stunned that her desire to survive kept her alive. Kids are tough, aren't they.
Quote:When we have children, they become hostages to fate.
Interesting that that comes from a Kennedy...
Quote:I feel that the one thing crucial to child rearing is allowing children to deal with decision making.
Yes! The freedom to do stupid things and suffer the consequences! I remember, when I was a kid, that everything painful "built character." It may save a limb or two, but, damn it, getting all helmeted and padded up to get on your bike as a six-year-old does not build character. (And other more important stuff, too.)
patio, I guess I should have been more explicit about decision making. It would have been better to say participate in decision making.
Yes, that remark by JFK was prophetic. Rose Kennedy must have felt that way.
I thought I was fully in agreement with you, Letty. A firm believer that a controlled measure of danger and independence is crucial to growing up.
(Before Rose died, an old prof of mine had a line akin to "Is the pope catholic?" or "Does a bear, you know, walk around and eat berries and fish and occasionally defecate demurely in a secluded copse?" Upon being asked a question whose answer was obviously in the affirmative, he'd respond, "Does Rose Kennedy have a black dress?" Ahh, good times. A character, Danny is....)
