Childhood demons

I'm afraid I am exactly where you are on this one, boomer, so I won't be of much help. The best I can come up with, based on my own upbringing, is that you have to recognize what parts of you are attributable to childhood experience, but you don't have to excuse them (if they're negative). Recognition is the first part of "recovery" I guess you could call it. You can't change what you don't understand. Do I think there are some childhoods that so badly affect children that adult normalcy is almost beyond reach? I have to accept that there are.

I recently read something about identical twins, and how environmental factors can act as a gas pedal or a brake on what is already there, genetically.

I find the gas pedal or brake idea useful in general -- that it's not so much what one is in some immutable way, but whether the tendencies are faced with gas pedals or brakes.

The problem I have in terms of the "hogwash" part is that I don't think it solves anything to say that "well, he/ she had a terrible childhood, so... <shrug>" It's insulting to the people who had a terrible childhood and DIDN'T turn out to be criminals, whether due to their own bootstrapness, or due to wonderful adults in their lives, or whatever combination of factors.

If we're talking about the importance of early intervention, or the importance of good schools, or the importance of good parenting, or the importance of maximizing environmental factors (not just personal interactions but diet, exercise, lack of pollutants, etc.), that's one thing. I think it is important and worth taking into account.

But the implications of "he had a lousy childhood so we'll give him a pass" are too disturbing. People do have to be held accountable for their actions at some point.

Boom Boom,

It is a pleasure to read such a post as that.Your questioning of a previously bigoted attitude is an example to us all.

There is a great deal of writing on this subject and with that proper frame of mind you have you are in position to benefit from it.

I think that the double standard was simply a convenient excuse to dispose of those who were at a disadvantage in this regard but in saying that I have to admit that it may have been necessary in previous times.But not now.We can afford to care for them now and we do do.

You have my best wishes and so does the kid.

Regards.

In my typical fence sitting fashion, I find myself nodding along with both of you.

I agree that there are people so damaged by their childhoods that they can never fall within any perimeter of "normal" and I do agree that it is irresponsible of us to give them a pass for their disturbing actions.

A lot of criminals use the "lousy childhood" excuse but I imagine a lot of criminals did indeed have lousy childhoods.

I've known one girl who had a truly horrific childhood and she just shrugs it off as the past.

And I've known people who think one childhood trauma excuses a wealth of bad behavior.

It is a fine and wavy line.

My "hogwa..... o wait" response almost makes me believe that professional juries would be a good idea.

Thank you spendius.

I'm not convinced that we do take care of them though I agree that we can afford to.

It seems to me that we have reached the conclusion that it is cheaper to lock adults away in prison than it is to intervene to protect a kid.

Boom Boom

That's another matter.That is very complicated.

I don't think we have reached that conclusion quite.
We haven't reached any conclusions.But there's a direction and it is moving the right way.

I oght to have added that I'm in the UK and the EEC.

Ah! And therein lies the difference, I suppose.

In America we're more prone to whining and wringing our hands over kids....

.... until they're old enough to lock up.

For instance, there is no parity for mental health in most insurance policies. We sought help. Our insurance granted help. Such a teeny-tiny amount of help that even the counselor decided the "help" would do more harm than good at this point.

For this service my family of three pays more than $600 each month.

Boom Boom

I don't know what to say about that.

It's not like that here.At least I don't think it is.

It is true that kids are greatly influenced by their childhood, but i think if you leave that to explain why they are...the way they are, when they grow up is just being shortsighted. The brain is an amazing mass of tissue but if one would saying it can be molded into the perfect form by listening to Bach and having the "perfect" childhood i strongly disagree. Everyone experiences things differently, they distort and translate it so their own minds can understand it. One child could grow up in a rich family and drop out of high school and the next could be working on his bachelors in chemistry. Whats good for one person might kill the next so to say. I dont think i explained this as well as i wanted to so feel free to rip my statement apart.

Timing, timing. I can envision being in some hell as a child and adjusting to that hell, and then somehow going to first grade...

As a preternaturally shy first grader myself, I can just imagine how tough it would be to have a psychiatrically afflicted family. It's not that hard to imagine, my niece dealt with this.
She's ok, but she's a toughy, and is still dealing, all these years later.

They say this is all not an excuse. And some people do overcome and not only adjust but thrive. But many are left bereft.

I have always said that we can't control our childhoods because we didn't own it. But when we reach adulthood, we're no longer children and have to own what we are and take responsibility for ourselves. We have to keep moving forward. Part of that does include looking back to see where you've been, but it does not include staying back there because that's where it's comfortable.

Hmmmmm.

Let me offer this real world example:

Back in the 60s when I was a kid my parents best friends adopted a little three year old boy.

This family had everything, they were very wealthy.

The boy, let's call him Roger, soon started exhibiting some very violent tendencies.

The family spared no expense in trying to find help for him - doctors, specialists, psychiatrists, nutritionists, therapist of all color and hue. Nothing helped.

Backed by this team of experts the family obtained a court order to have the adoption records opened, hoping that by exploring his past they could help him shape a brighter future. The abuse they discovered was beyond horrific.

I well remember being a student in Chicago when Roger and his family made a trip to the city and I offered tour guide services. He pleaded with me to take him to where the gangs hung out so that he could join up with one. As a young teen he already had a bad path in mind.

The boy grew and set himself out on this criminal path. The family practiced tough love, hoping that by learning consequences that he could learn to control his impulses.

Eventually he raped a girl and was sent to prison where, against all odds, Roger met his biological father. With the consent of the adoptive parents the adoption was voided.

Roger had so many opportunities to overcome his childhood but he couldn't. He didn't remember the horrors but they were part of his life.

Having read more than I can honestly stand on attachment and bonding issues, I know that infant brains, when faced with constant stress, are damaged by the stress hormones that flood the baby's system. Their brains are not the same as a child's whose needs have been met in infancy.

In a way, it seems that Roger's criminal path was set in motion long before Roger could form criminal intent.

I don't believe that this is an excuse to remove responsiblity for his actions but I do get very confused about the whole issue (and that's why I'm asking).

I'm not talking about creating a perfect form of brain but about damaging one. What doesn't kill someone is sometimes a miracle.

Intervention is probably key - but as my example illustrates, it doesn't always help. Sometimes intervention just creates more "victims".

And I agree that you can't live in the past and that you have to move forward. But what if the damage is done during a part of your life where you were too young to remember?

Good example boomer, and something like what I had in mind on the last page about normalcy being impossible for some kids.

I don't think I've read as much as you about the subject of attachment, but I did read A General Theory of Love and came away with an understanding about how important those first years are. I wish I knew of a cure or something that could work but I don't, and nobody does.

I still believe that as adults we are responsible for shaping ourselves, but I do understand that that can be a lot easier for some than for others. Believe me, my childhood was nothing that would even raise eyebrows with social services and it has been and continues to be a very long road. I can't imagine if it had been even close to some people's early lives.



I wish I knew. Would it help the child if he had been told of his abuse? I don't know, maybe it would help him understand and introspect, or maybe he would use it as an excuse, or maybe he would take it to mean that he was damaged beyond repair so why bother striving toward normalcy?

I am on the fence just like you, boomer. I hate problems without solutions, but this one appears to remain unsolved.

I think that while Roger acquired malforming baggage very early in his life, Roger also made choices about what to do about incorporating his emotional legacies into his life.

Rebels with Causes or causes still make choices.

I'm guessing from geographic and temporal distances with very few facts that for some reason Roger never realized he could have the power to be "normal" or to "do good". Power for Roger was represented by law breakers and bullies and this factor influenced his choices.

In fiction and folklore The Bad Seed and Bad Blood and Demon Incarnate have plot value--and to some degree they are drawn from life. All the same, people have choices.

Re: Childhood demons


You employ a peculiar concept that is regularly used by researchers in this field. It is the concept of a damaged or disordered brain. There appears no other reason why you should want to talk of brain structures and 'wiring'. The term disorder is at best metaphorical but it is undoubtedly an equivocation. We would not expect that a 'disordered' behaviour, a behaviour we find unacceptable, to be disordered because the brain is similarly disordered. It isn't even clear what we would mean by 'disordered brain matter'. Pursuing this a little further, the term disorder is also a paradigmatic oxymoron. It attempts to unite disparate paradigms, of mind and matter in this case.

I know that's right - that it all boils down to making choices.

My point with the Roger story is that he didn't know his legacy until he was much older and already in trouble. If I recall correctly, he was entering puberty when the adoption records were opened and the discoveries were made.

I think you're right, Noddy, about how power can manifest itself in so many different ways. There has always been a certain glamour to gangsterhood - thats nothing new.

Hi John Jones and welcome to A2K. Thanks for joining the thread.

I want to make sure that I understand you correctly before commenting.

Are you saying there is no such thing as a brain disorder?

That the brain is somehow independent of our biochemesty?

That the brain transcends matter?

while I was washing last night's dishes, I was thinking about the implications of power.

Perhaps a better term for inherent, individual strength is "mana".



As I understand the Hawaiian term, "mana" isn't simply a power to act but being a powerful person, a person of such psychic substance that action is not necessarily require to prove worth.

It is never clear what is meant by a 'brain disorder'. I would like you to say what the disorder is of. If you say 'the disorder is a disorder of brain matter', I would like to know what matter looks like when it is 'disordered'.