My email was nothing more than a suggestion that we remember that all of this research is correlational. How children turn out on any dimension is a complex mix.
Which means that besides the X (poor parenting; stress; day care; genetic propensity etc) and the Y (child outcome) are 100s of other variables that might be at play. Additionally more children survive their childhoods today than ever before....more children means more children with all kinds of problems. Some of which we just discovered (or made up.) I wouldn't put too much stock in any explanation - (except for wholeheartedly rejecting anything to do with vaccinations causing autism. That one is a bunch of crap.) Nancy Melucci LBCC -----Original Message----- From: Joan Warmbold <jwarm...@oakton.edu> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) <tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu> Sent: Thu, Jun 5, 2014 2:09 pm Subject: Re: [tips] Roids Might Cause Autism Nancy, Of course I'm not considering a blank slate notion. But why are we willing to accept the opposite perspective that it's all there from birth?! First, aren't most of those brain abnormalities also simply correlational? And aren't they totally ignoring the reality of the crucial nature of brain plasticity during our early life experiences? Most of our behaviors are shaped by heredity and by environmental experiences. But in the last 30+ years researchers don't even bother to record ANY of the interactions between the parents and their children but simply the child's behavior. It appears that any type of analysis of early life interactions in any sense is now viewed as verboten. I just wish folks would take a little time to examine the research by Henry Massie in 1978 where his analysis of home movies revealed a distinct differential responsiveness from the parents toward their infants before they had developed any symptoms of autism. But placing fault is so irrelevant and you, of all people, should know that. Massie provided tons of family history for each set of parents to help explain why they simply didn't have the skills and ability to respond appropriately to their infants and often improved with experience. It surely was not a choice on their part and it appears that they were doing the best they knew how. But not everyone is equally prepared and/or properly supported to deal with the 24/7 overwhelming role of parenting. Our quality of parenting is influenced by so many variables: how we were parented; the amount of stress in our lives; the amount of emotional and practical support we are provided; how well we have been educated on child development, etc. Is it a parent's fault if their parents weren't very positive role models or that they are under excessive stress or that they feel nervous, inhibited and/or woefully unprepared for their new role? And how much support does our society provide for parents?! So very little. Research comparing paid parental leaves among western countries places us dead last, and research has shown that this does make a difference. Should that surprise us--I mean really. A study on "Maternal leave, early maternal employment and child health and development in the US" conducted by Berger, Hill and Waldfoger comes to the following conclusion: This paper uses data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to explore links between mothersÂ’ returns to work within 12 weeks of giving birth and health and developmental outcomes for their children. OLS models and propensity score matching methods areutilizedd to account for selection bias. Considerable associations between early returns to work and children's outcomes are found suggesting causal relationships between early returns to work and reductions in breastfeeding andimmunizationss, as well as increases inexternalizinggbehaviorr problems. These results are generally stronger for mothers who return to work full-time within 12 weeks of giving birth. Similar conclusions come from other studies relative to the health of mother and child when there is pressure to return to work within a very short period of time post-partum. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019339730400053X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629600000473 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661484/ And the US lags way behind most other westernized countries, as Waldenfold's research reveals: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1602812?uid=3739656&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104116372477 So I do think parents strongly influence their children's development for better or worse as well as the child influencing how we parent--it is, indeed a two-way street. But it is two-way. And I don't think we can take credit for doing a good job as we likely had so many advantages working in our favor just as I absolutely do not "blame" parents who are unable to provide their children the necessary support, warmth and acceptance. But your email is one more classic example of why we will continue 'till kingdom come looking for organic neurological reasons for serious psychological disorders of all varieties. Joan jwarm...@oakton.edu > > These things - like the rise of day care etc. and other changes in family > life over the past century may exist and yet the origin of the disease > still have absolutely nothing with failure of parents to engage the child. > Since this is correlational, the hypothesis that the brain is being shaped > by negligent parenting is strictly based on that kind of evidence from > which we are cautioned not to draw causal conclusions. > > Kagan's work gave equally compelling evidence that children shape parents. > It's a two-way feedback loop. > > How can you possibly be so sure that the "brain abnormalities" aren't > hard-wired, given that children and parents shape each other's behavior? > Are you truly pitching a blank-slate argument here? > > I am not asking rhetorically. You seem to be suggesting that it IS the > parent's fault even as you say you aren't. You contradict yourself. Do you > or don't you? > The indictment of child development specialists looks like > window-dressing. Because according to this argument, the horse is already > out of the barn. > Parental (maternal) self-absorption has already done the damage (since the > treatment is so costly.) > > If your child stops smiling at you from a very early age, and you don't > get that crucial positive reinforcement from the smiles and other language > and non-verbal response, you are going to stop trying. > You'd have to be totally dense to keep trying to engage a non-responsive > partner of any age or relationship. It's like banging your head on a brick > wall. Have you ever spent the evening with an adult who is like that? > > That would as true of the most devoted stay at home parent (mother, since > it usually ends up being laid at her door - the crime of not trying hard > enough and not giving up enough on behalf of the child) as it would of a > daycare using 60 hour a week working parent. If your kid won't engage you > back, you are going to stop trying. > > Another hypothesis, equally plausible, a combination of the every > expanding diagnostic basket of ASD + the fact that parents who are > probably genetically prone to less social activities (scientists, creative > types, those who are generally prone to being comfortable spending time > alone) are finding each other and mating and having children who have > those tendencies too, is contributing to the growth of the diagnostic. I > forgot where I read that - it's not an original idea. > > One post hoc explanation is as good as another. > > Nancy Melucci > Long Beach City College > Long Beach CA > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joan Warmbold <jwarm...@oakton.edu> > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > <tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu> > Sent: Wed, Jun 4, 2014 6:20 pm > Subject: Re: [tips] Roids Might Cause Autism > > > The history of research for the last 25 years or so to determine the > origins of autism is very tragic as we insist on finding some type of > genetic and/or neurobiological source and nothing definitive has been > found. This excessive male hormone conjecture will just be another one of > many biological deadend alleys for which thousands of research dollars > have surely been spent. The folks conducting the research to locate some > type of genetic marker and/or biological explanation have been pulling in > literally tons of funding $$$ but to what effect? And why are we so > willing to let this ludicrous search for the magic biological bullet > continue? > > My fairly extensive reading of the research seems to reveal that only two > fairly reliable answers to this tragic disorder have been determined. The > first is that very early behavioral interventions can be extremely > effective but quite costly. The second is that all the various brain > abnormaliities that have been found in children with ASD practically > scream out that there has been some serious deficit in their early life > experiences relative to social engagement. If there is one area of > agreement it's that these children's social brains have not been properly > wired for processing faces, making eye contact, etc. For example, autistic > children do not process faces well and, if they do, they use a different > area than "normal" children always use--an area in the right hemisphere > referred to as interotemporal cortex. Of course, the neurologists are > assuming that this must be due to some organic, prenatal factor(s). Those > of us who know the crucial nature of early brain plasticity realize that > early life experiences likely are playing a role. > > This is not to say "it's the parents' fault," in any sense of the word. To > the contrary, the blame lies squarely on those of us who are well-informed > in the field of child development and the nature of early brain > development to not speak up about loudly and clearly. Family dynamics > have surely dramatically altered in the last 35 years with both parents > working, the extensive use of day care and the increased dependence on > technology. I know I will create a ruckus, so to speak, but this is where > one of the very important answers to ASD will be found--early life > interactions--where Henry Massie started way back in 1978. How sad and > unnecessary that we have missed all of those intervening years to resolve > and improve the number of cases of autism--and all due to political > correctness--what a grip PC has on us all. > > Joan > jwarm...@oakton.edu > > >> Simon Baron-Cohen's (cousin of Sacha) research group has published an >> analysis of Danish birth data in this they compared the amount of >> several >> sex >> steroid hormones (i.e., testosterone, etc.) in the amniotic fluid of >> boys >> who went on to develop some form of autism and a matched control >> group of normal boys. It appears that boys with autism had much higher >> levels of sex steroids than normal boys (all steroids were elevated and >> a principal components analysis provides a single "steroidogenic factor" >> that summarizes these measures). This seems like an interesting result >> but must more needs to be done before hard claims can be made. >> >> The mass media has picked up on this research and one sources is >> the following: >> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/03/boys-with-autism-likely-exposed-to-more-hormones-in-the-womb >> and another is: >> http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/40131/title/Autism-Hormone-Link-Found/ >> >> The original article was published in the journal "Molecular Psychiatry" >> and >> available for free at: >> http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201448a.html >> >> -Mike Palij >> New York University >> m...@nyu.edu >> >> >> >> --- >> You are currently subscribed to tips as: jwarm...@oakton.edu. >> To unsubscribe click here: >> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752d0d&n=T&l=tips&o=37023 >> or send a blank email to >> leave-37023-49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: drna...@aol.com. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=12993.aba36cc3760e0b1c6a655f019a68b878&n=T&l=tips&o=37031 > or send a blank email to > leave-37031-12993.aba36cc3760e0b1c6a655f019a68b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: jwarm...@oakton.edu. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752d0d&n=T&l=tips&o=37033 > or send a blank email to > leave-37033-49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: drna...@aol.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=12993.aba36cc3760e0b1c6a655f019a68b878&n=T&l=tips&o=37051 or send a blank email to leave-37051-12993.aba36cc3760e0b1c6a655f019a68b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=37052 or send a blank email to leave-37052-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
