Saturday, August 11, 2007

Misconceptions

After reading many of the blogs....good and bad, I have discovered there are so many misconceptions out there in the land of infertility and adoption....here are just a few. Feel free to add some more.

1. We adopted parents are NOT wealthy, don't live in huge beautiful houses and don't give all their children a pony. We work hard for what we do have and usually have to take out a loan to afford an adoption.

2. Eggs can be bad at an early age and can still be good at 45. Just because you are young and healthy and in your 20s, you can have bad eggs. In the same turn, just because your 45 - it does not mean you have to have donor eggs to have a baby. I know a woman at 52 who is pregnant without any help and another at 47 who had IVF and is pregnant with twins.

3. NOT all adoptees are sad about being adopted.

4. Just like a lot of people with biological children, most adopted parents must also work and find a good babysitter during the work week. This does not make them bad parents....you wouldn't say people whop work with biological kids are bad so why are aparents?

5. All children go through a period of separation anxiety, it's not just something that adopted kids go through. Read some early childhood development books (the one's NOT written by anti-adoption authors) and you will see it's normal.

please add.....i know there are more - these are a few off the top of my head....

43 comments:

tubelessstl said...

This weeks comment: "Just hire a surrogate" instead of adopting. Sorry, but a surrogate is average cost of $25-30,000 fees, then you have to pay for IVF if you want to transfer your own embryos, which costs another $10-15,000. HELLO. Do you have a money tree growing in your backyard? If so, Can I spend one afternoon picking its fruit of green bills?

BlessedWithDaughters said...

I just posted this past week on one you can add to your list: Most of us adoptive parents do NOT view adoptive parenting as settling for "second best."

Oh, an infertility myth: "As soon as you adopt, you'll end up getting pregnant." or "If you can just relax, you'll get pregnant."

margaret said...

There are so many misconceptions it's mindboggling. All aparents are self centered and greedy, all bmoms are drug addicts, all adoptees are screwed up. Those are some of the worst I can think of off the top of my head.

Anonymous said...

How about the myth that only people with fertility problems adopt. I'm sick of the sad, "Oh poor you with the infertility" looks. I'm not infertile and it bugs me. I can't imagine how annoying it is for people who have struggled with those problems.

Julie said...

Back these up. With fact. With research. Back them up. What authority do you have to make these claims?

petunia said...

Julie, what do you waqnt backed up with research? This is all common sense and facts that most people know. This is not brain surgery... look at the income of adopted parents... most are NOT wealthy. A good number hold down jobs. Look at most adoptees outside the blog world and they are happy. The egg thing and separation anxiety- well, that's just textbook.
For what do you want numbers.

Susan said...

Unless you can really back it up, it's not common sense. It's your opinion.
It's called empirical evidence. You say you went to grad school so you should know all about that.
For instance, here is another opinion of yours that you claim to be fact, "Anyone can write a book." Well that's obviously not true or else all the local bookstores would be swamped with the world according to Petunia.
Please, do some research and give us facts and maybe we'll start to believe you.

petunia said...

I don't see a lot of research to the contrary...and there are an awful lot of negative blogs who like to spout false statements and never back it up. Do I need to keep backing all of this up with numbers? This is not a research magazine...this is my personal blog. For what do you want evidence in this post? What are you questioning?
And anyone CAN write a book and publish it...Just look at AMAZON...I know a bunch of people who have written books and are selling them there. They're not very good and I think only family and friends buy them but -viola...you're an author! Show me where these crack pots who publish many of these anti-adoption books have credentials...

Tishslp said...

Petunia:

I'm confused. What exactly do these dissenters want proven? That there are some happy adoptees? That adoptive parents aren't all wealthy? That all adoptive parents were infertile first?

You're a happy adoptee. DH and I are adoptive parents and we live in one of the most expensive areas in the country and we scrap the sofa cushions and car's ashtray every month to pay the modest bills and we STILL have an adopted child, a godson, three dogs and two cats running around:) Amazing. And, here's the kicker.....WE'RE HAPPY doing it :) Someone on this very post is NOT infertile yet is an adoptive parent.

No one has said there are NOT unhappy adoptees. No one has said there are NOT wealthy adoptive parents. No one has said some adoptive parents AREN'T infertile. So, why the fuss....

Or do you have some "followers" who just want to throw in their digs (even unfounded) as often as they can? Hmmmm......

rob said...

The "empirical evidence" thing for the blog comment is laugh out loud funny. Maybe you need to add a myth for these more, um, naive (?) readers that blogs are not resources that one should cite for a graduate research paper? :)

I would like julie and susan to provide us with some empirical data that counters your "myth" claims... maybe a link to their blog that is most certainly chock full of empirical data in every blog entry! LOL

petunia said...

exactly

Susan said...

I really don't have a problem with Petunia expressing her opinions. It's when she states her opinions as fact without backing it up that it's a problem. An opinion presented as fact is called PROPAGANDA.

You know, once upon a time everyone thought the world was flat and the beheaded people who felt otherwise. "Everyone" thought that but it doesn't mean they were right. In FACT, they were very wrong.

And that is why you need to back up your factual statement with real proof.

You know this already though Petunia, if you really went to grad school.

And why does asking for actual evidence to Petunia's "factual statements" construed as an attack?

Susan said...

And Rob. Maybe you should check out Julie's blog. She has a great deal of resources and empirical studies for you to check out anytime.

petunia said...

Talk about propaganda!
Julie writes: "How many years have true professionals been telling everyone that even a healthy white infant (HWI) is a special needs child? If a child has been separated from his/her mother, s/he has special needs." ??????????????PLEEEEEASE!
Special needs? Where is the research in that? What crack pot doctor is going to back that up?
Susan, what do you disagree with? The statements here are all basic knowledge like "more woman are playing sports than ever before" or "some men like to cook"... you could disagree but what's the point?

Cmommy said...

Wow. Petunia, we need to talk irl!

I'm a happy adoptee. My parents love(d) me. My sibling was a nightmare. Do I blame them? No! Do I blame my birthmom? No! Stuff happens--regardless of birth, social status, race, religion, etc.

Do I need stats to back up that statement? :-)
C

rob Reed said...

Susan: this is an example from Julie's blog (on her front page now): "The picture was taken only a couple of months after my birth. I had just spent 6 weeks in what I now call the "Pit of Despair," Harlow's term of endearment for the metal isolation chambers in which he observed his baby monkeys' reaction to separation from their mothers."

Julie uses Harlow's pit of despair as a "separation from mother" when, in reality, it was separation from ANYTHING. The statement counters the study altogether, as we know that the monkeys (when given a mechanical surrogate) were much more well off than those monkeys in the "pit of despair."

So, right off the bat, I find Julie's blog not only lacking in the "empirical evidence" you demand here, but (at least in this case) out-and-out dishonest.

If anything, Harlow's Monkey experiment proved the importance of adoption -- where the natural parents are unable or undesirous of taking care of a child, then -- that child better damn well be put into the hands of people who want to and/or can take care of the child, or there will be severe ramifications.

Susan said...

I don't "demand" anything Rob. Why are you so hostile to me? I'm not the enemy here.

Once again I will reiterate that I have no problem with Petunia's opinions. In fact I agree with many of them. I just don't like seeing an opinion represented as fact. And "everybody knows that" is just not enough proof for me.

Petunia, I am really not trying to insult you. If you have opinions to share, please do.

petunia said...

Susan, I agree whole heartedly that too many people claim their opinions are fact - Julie is one, so I'm surprised you said "She has a great deal of resources and empirical studies for you to check out anytime"
a few things were listed just from the last few posts.
I want you to re-read the things I wrote on this post--- you still haven't said anything else you disagree with aside from the book thing and that should not be in dispute anymore. Tell me what is not fact....

Susan said...

Well, for one, where is the fact tat not all aparents are wealthy? I understand that you are not and that is fine. But is there actual proof of your claim? Has material been published that shows the scale of income of families that adopt?
I know you say that most who adopt are not rich however my experience has been different. I know and grew up with quite a few adoptees from affluence some of whom, many of whom did have ponies and rode in equestrian tournaments. Many attended Ivy League schools.
What's wrong with that anyway?

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that you can't make a statement like that as fact without having actual proof of it.

And yes, I still disagree with you on getting a book published. I'm not talking about those who publish privately. I believe the book in question was published by a reputable publisher. Not anyone can get published but anyone can have a blog.

But, as always, you are entitled to your opinion.
And so am I.

rob said...

Hi Susan:

One of the things I hate about the text medium is that it can be "read" and "read into." I was not intending to be hostile at all. Just pointing out that the blog you suggested has the same pitfall problems that you suggest are within this blog.

"Please, do some research and give us facts and maybe we'll start to believe you."

I interpreted this as a demand.

petunia said...

Ani - I have never claimed that all adoptees are happy - in fact I think it's probably about the same amount of biological kids that are happy. Some people are just not happy people or grew up with a family that was not all that happy. All I'm saying is - adoptees are not all unhappy people and you cannot blame adoption on unhappiness.

I talked to quite a few banks before we adopted and many of them had adoption loans. When I asked if people use them the answer was always a yes...that tells me something. Also, the people I know that work at agencies say the average income for people who adopt is middle income (not even high middle income). Do you think it's just rich people that are infertile or have the desire to adopt? Those are just the one's you hear about on the news or the one's that people talk about.

Susan said...

No. I don't think it's only rich people who adopt. Not at all. And I never said that. However I am saying that it would be nice to see actual statistics on this before stating it as fact. My adoptive parents happen to be wealthy (and nice). Their friends who adopted also happen to be wealthy. Therefore, I happened to grow up with many adopted friends from the same social and economic class.
I'm not saying that all people who adopted are rich...because I have no proof of that. I just happen to know quite a few.
See how our experiences can cloud our perceptions of fact?
And FYI, wealthy people take out loans too so I'm not sure how that is proof of anything but if it makes you happy, ok, great.
I truly enjoy reading your blog.

BlessedWithDaughters said...

We're very much middle income. Had to borrow. There's a huge difference between being rich and having good credit.

If just one person who adopts isn't rich (and I'm one...and Petunia says she's another), then the statement that "not all adoptive families are rich" holds true.

Tishslp said...

Yes, Ani, it's expensive to adopt. About the same amount as to buy a new car.

But, people buy a new car for the same amount (or more) all the time. They borrow from the bank, borrow from friends, take on high payments that strap them for a time, scrimp and save, do fundraising or take a loan against retirement or a life insurance policy. Are they rich?

People take out loans or use the above measures to buy houses, finance college, start a business or all kinds of other things vastly more expensive than adoption. What about people who go through the foster to adopt system. Are they rich?

C'mon. Look seriously and without such an obvious agenda at adoption and the families that they involve and you'll see that not all adoptive families are rich.....or even close. Some are, some aren't. Hmmm.....pretty much like the general population.

Tishslp said...

Susan:

I think the difference is that wealthy people don't NEED to take out a loan to adopt. My point was, and is, that the costs associated with adoption are not much more than many, many people in America pay for a new car, meaning that even those with a modest income can find a way to finance it if it's what they really want.

You didn't specify just exactly what you wanted "backed up with empirical evidence". The income of adoptive parents was one thing that was mentioned in Petunia's post. It jumped out at me and I commented on it.

"I just don't like seeing an opinion represented as fact. And "everybody knows that" is just not enough proof for me."

I've asked this before, but never got a concrete, much less satisfactory, answer. Here goes again:

Why should P reference or "back up" ANY of her opinions on this blog? Or in a diary? Or in a personal correspondance with others? Is there a blog police out there who will arrest her for stating her opinion? I find P to be well-spoken and literate. I also see her citing references for several of her opinions; I don't need her to reference every darn thing she says, even that information with which I don't agree. It's HER blog. If I don't like what she has to say, I skip over it or I won't come back to it. How many people IRL do you know who spout all kinds of nonsense as if it were "fact"? Geez, if I went running after everyone who espoused opinion as fact I wouldn't have time to actually enjoy myself and research my own opinions. I, like most people, shrug and walk away. It doesn't take anything away from me or my experiences.

People writing on their personal blogs are not writing articles for Harvard law school. A personal blog IS for opinions. Why the need to dot every "I" and cross every "t"?

Susan said...

You're right...you are repeating yourself tishsip.

Listen, I have already explained my reasons for asking questions and requesting some evidence on these well known "facts" everyone is talking about.

I did not attack anyone here.

To disagree is not to attack.

I don't dislike Petunia or her blog.

I thought Petunia and I were having an interesting discussion.

I assume she thinks so too otherwise she would not allow my comments to be seen.

But something about me really seems to get to you.
Not sure why.

Her blog is her blog and she can say whatever she wants. This is very true.

I have already said my piece and asked my questions and I am satisfied with her responses.

Why do you feel such a strong need to defend Petunia when it doesn't look like she needs it?

The truth is, Petunia is a big girl. And she has chosen to open her blog to comments. And really, i have the right to ask any question I want within reason.
Last time I checked, we were living in America, right?

Why can't I comment here?

And furthermore, who cares if rich people are adopting? My parents were/are wealthy. They have provided me with a very nice life and I love them dearly for all they have given me both emotionally and otherwise. What's wrong with that?

petunia said...

Susan, I don't know Tishslp but she has read many of the attacks on me throughout the last year and has been one of my biggest supporters. She is in the the same boat as me and we feel very much the same about adoption from the adoptees perspective. There comes a point of frustration when people question you. You had asked for numbers on these facts...but in my opinion these were common sense things...they are to most adoptees and adopted parents anyway.
When I was growing up I thought everyone was Catholic and denied there was anything else. If you grew up wealthy around other wealthy families you have a little different perspective on things.
Since I have been involved with adoption I have met and talked to hundreds of adoptees and adopted parents. I will say, none of the adopted parents I know are wealthy and only a few adoptees grew up in a wealthy family.
Again, no one is attacking at this point, it's just a little heated that's all.
I've written a few angry sounding posts when I get frustrated or I'm in a bad mood, I thank you for understanding our strong feelings about this.

Tishslp said...

Susan,

Let me give you an analogy. It's as if you were at a restaurant and overheard a party of people discussing something you disagreed with. You go over to their table, plop yourself down and tell them they must cite empirical data for what they are saying in a public place. When someone points out that this is a group of people getting together who hold similar views and are just out for a nice chat together, you say "It's America....I can comment anywhere I want to". Yes, it's America and yes you are entitled to verbalize your opinions. But if you do it against the tide or in a way that seems more like baiting than honest participation, be prepared to "get to" people.

Susan, I don't like or dislike you. I see you pop up on P's blog from time to time, often to point out where she is wrong or to suggest that she doesn't have the experience she is claiming she does. But none of these things are enough for me to know who you are and so I don't particularly have strong feelings for or about you. I responded to you because you are the one still in the discussion. If Julie was the last post I read, I'd respond to her, instead. If that's "getting to" me, then okay, you get to me, I guess :)

All this to say: Peace, Susan. If jumping onto blogs and playing devil's advovcate is what you want to do, then by all means do it. We all have our things that bring us satisfaction.

I'm just trying to explain why you might see me as "defending" Petunia or as an adversary.

Julie said...

Newsflash: My POSTS are "empirical evidence." Puhleeze look up the definition of "empirical." Most of the 40-odd books and articles I have linked on my blog are FACT based on research - NOT "empirical evidence."

I don't give a rat's patoot if anyone reads my blog posts. I WOULD very much like if people would read the books and articles that I have linked. Teach YOURSELVES. Read (and I don't mean skim).

READ. And decide for yourselves, for pete's sake!

And Petunia, you don't see a lot of research to the contrary because you do not WANT to see it. That is human nature - you see what you WANT to see. I have seen from both sides - from the "Happy Adoptee"s side (which I once was) as well as the more reasoned side.

I advocate for CHILDREN - not for the adoption industry. I wish people would keep that in mind. If I thought adoption was GOOD FOR CHILDREN, I would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Julie said...

Rob - my post about Harlow's "Pit of Despair" was NOT dishonest. What do you know about me? What do you know about what happened to me during the first 6 weeks after my birth? I had ZERO contact with human beings except when a bottle was propped over me and when my diapers were changed. ZERO, c'mon, Rob, say it with me... ZERO human contact for the first 6 weeks after I was born. I do believe I have a right to compare my experience with Harlow's monkeys. I make no claim that is the status quo these days.

Oh let me read your blog and decide if you are being "out and out dishonest" based on one post without knowing anything about your history. Shcmuck.

petunia said...

Julie, you come across as almost violent. Okay, so you site things from books? I could site things from Nazi journals from the 30s and it would still be a pack of lies. My quote from your blog is scary...who are these "specialists" who say white infant adoptees are "special needs' -- that is just ludicrous. I couldn't go past the last few posts when I looked over at your blog...it's FULL of lies that is backed up with God knows WHAT and from Where... evidence.
.
I really am tired of these angry, mean anti adopters. It's like they go all "psycho" on here...

MomEtc. said...

I do think Julie has a point to make here. My mother was very depressed after my birth and disallowed contact with me for a few weeks. I was in an incubator. I really don't know the impact on me, but it is similar, in some respects to Harlow's experiments. I can certainly see how this would have a negative impact on a newborn. I can't imagine how it couldn't.

And, I wish Petunia wouldn't be asked for hard proof of anything she writes on her blog. It's her blog and she is expressing her personal beliefs.

Tishslp said...

Julie

I am sorry that you had a difficult time in your childhood. I'm sorry for all children, including myself, who were denied the love and affection that they deserve.....not just for the first six weeks of life but the first eighteen years of life and beyond. You are always a child to your parent and will always need their love and guidance to some degree. To withhold that love and affection is, IMO, criminal.

Your wounds, no matter how deep, still don't give you the right to call people names or act in a hostile manner. There are people who have suffered even more than you or I who are able to conduct themselves with some measure of dignity while still making their points.

Being pro-adoption IS being for the children. Adoption is one option for growing up in a loving, stable family. Kinship placement is another. Parenting is a third. Foster care is yet another choice to keep some families intact and to provide a bridge over which children can safely navigate until biological parents are able to do their job.

There are adoptive parents who abuse and whose children have attachment issues. There are kinship relationships involving abuse and attachment issues. There are biological parents who abuse and their children suffer life-long consequences. There are foster parents who abuse and provide a barely adequate home where children leave worse off than they entered. Even though these are a small percentage of the overall "happy" cases, this is why it is so important to support reforms that encourage a zero tolerance policy for true abuse/neglect of children. This will eliminate the problem to the degree humanly possible and show adoptive, biological, kinship and foster parenting in their true light....as a loving option choosen in the best interest of the child.

"READ. And decide for yourselves, for pete's sake!"

Julie, I HAVE read books and articles, as well as speaking with child and family psychologists familiar with adoption, and I HAVE and AM deciding for myself. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that what you're saying is "READ. And decide to believe what I do, for pete's sake!"

It's not a contest. It's not a matter of numbers. It's a matter of reading the evidence, hearing the anecdotes, reviewing your own experiences and then making an informed decision. There will be points along the road where we agree and points where we don't. It's not critical that we all agree or even that we think the same way.

Julie said...

Violent? More like exasperated with voluntary and self-serving ignorance.

IF you were to quote some personal opinions from Nazi journals, you would be Citing them, not Siting them.

There are NO lies on my blog. There ARE,however plenty of lies on yours.

Here is one place, to answer your question about separated infants being special needs children:

http://www.birthpsychology.com/birthscene/adoption2.html

Wendy McCord, by the way, is a PRO-adoption therapist, and Marcy Axness id a PRO-adoption specialist and adult adoptee. Just so you know where they are coming from.

What, did you think your adopted child would not be traumatized to be separated from YOU?? Think about it....

petunia said...

Julie, a little nit-picky about the misspelling don't you think?

I know you think the things on your blog are the truth or there would be no reason for you to write them...even for an anti-adoption agenda. You are convinced, I'm sure that the peddlers of this information are knowledgeable and hold some credibility. But most scientists and psychologists would not agree. Look back at some of the memory studies I CITED from real Scientific journals, magazines and Universities. You will see that even though memory is forming and some types of memory are developed in the brain, newborns are incapable of the memory necessary to "remember" their mothers. Certain smells or sounds may be slightly more comforting but not to the point of memories that can be recalled. Infantile amnesia was stated by Sigmund Freud in 1916 but he suggested that children don't remember anything until 3 or 4. They know that is not true but infant memory...I think not.

Miss Wendy is a Therapist and makes a living by "helping" people just like you...hmm, makes you wonder what people will claim for $$.

And what on God's green earth are you talking about when you ask "What, did you think your adopted child would not be traumatized to be separated from YOU?? Think about it...." ??-- We are talking about INFANT adoption...I've said that many times.

Julie said...

"You are convinced, I'm sure that the peddlers of this information are knowledgeable and hold some credibility. But most scientists and psychologists would not agree."

Name one. ONE. One who has done any studies in the last 10 years. Freud?? You are Citing the work of a long-DEAD person.

"Miss Wendy" actually makes a living out of helping people just like YOU - not like ME, because I already acknowledge my loss.

And let's say we are talking about infant adoption. Do you think your newborn would not be traumatized by being separated from you? You think s/he would be none-the-wiser? Yes, you just get up and go home. And your newborn?? Get a GRIP.

Even if we are not talking about newborns, isn't your adopted child under your proclaimed age to remember? So, she would not be traumatized to be handed off to another adoptive couple?

Julie said...

P.S. Did you forget completely about a previous comment I made about the TWO different kinds of memory (implicit and explicit)? Did you not bother to learn about that?

Pfffffft!

Tishslp said...

mometc:

good points :)

Julie not only has every right to her opinion, she can feel absoloutely any way she chooses about any or all things involved in her own personal experience. I compeltely believe in that right for every person.

The thing is, I don't think I've ever heard P say that people DON'T grieve the losses inherent in some adoptions; I've only heard her say that she isn't convinced by the available literature (ALL of it, not just that which agrees with her personal pov) that INFANTS adopted AT BIRTH a. feel the loss of birthparents or b. process the loss they MAY feel in the same way as older children may when they are seperated from caretakers. This is a different thing, Julie, than saying that you personally don't feel loss from your own situation. Your comments seem to indicate that you think Petunia and others are saying that you SHOULDN'T feel loss surrounding the personal circumstances of your life. I personally don't believe that and I don't hear others saying that either.

Every person is an individual and so will react in an individual way. Most, if not all, life events are processed in different ways by different individuals, including: abuse/neglect/trauma, illness, childhood issues and memories, adolescence, marriage, job satisfaction, parenting, religion, family relations, etc. Why do all adopted infants have to respond in the same way to their adoption? In fact, both well-researched data as well as anectdotal evidence would suggest that adoption, like any major life event, is experienced differently by everyone.

Maybe the best means of support for all of us that can help increase our happiness and decrease our exasperation is to find like-minded people to be our support system. In this way, we can feel validated in our own experiences and viewpoints when we do venture out to examine the experiences and viewpoints of others. Worth a try anyway :)

Disclaimer: At this immediate time, or at some time in the past or perhaps in the future, in the course of transferring the thought process in my mind onto the electronic medium of the Internet, I may misspell a word, fail in the accurate and/or efficient use of punctuation or use less than collegiate vocabulary and/or grammar in expressing myself. Please be so kind as to overlook these miniscule imperfections as they have no actual bearing on the content, validity or delivery of my message :) Thanks!

petunia said...

Julie, in your seething anger you are not reading....look back at some my past posts about memory. And AGAIN, I am talking about INFANT adoption. It is traumatizing for children who have developed enough to remember.
I'm not going to site all the research again, if your interested you'll look back and find it. :)
.
I bet "Miss Wendy" charges a pretty penny to bring back all those "repressed memories".
.
For those who were older when adopted, I am sorry for your feelings of loss and pray that your adopted parents were great!

Julie said...

Regarding your most recent post about early memory:

EXplicit memory is located in the hippocampus. IMplicit memory is located in the limbic brain. The hippocampus is immature at birth; the limbic brain is fully functional even before birth. It is in the limbic brain where emotional memory is stored.

The article you posted is about the hippocampus and EXplicit memory, and I have no argument with the author's discussion of the development of the hippocampus and EXplicit memory. However, s/he does not discuss the limbic part of the brain at all.

IMplicit memory is the brain's sole learning component in the first years of life. Facial expressions, touch, and tone of voice, for instance, carry our emotional messages (located in the limbic brain), and no one can argue that babies are not born fluent in that signaling system!

petunia said...

Explicit memory is what we are talking about - it is immature at birth....it is the conscious, intentional recollection of previous experiences and information..... which , in turn, would be...memory of a birthmother...

I have no qualms about implicit (or procedural) memory being fully developed....these are subconscious memories of how to do different skills and procedures...however without the other parts of memory being fully developed most of that is no good --- for example. It works for mechanical, subconscious things like sucking which turns into breast/bottle feeding. That basic inner workings of "instinct".
.
This still does not explain a memory of a birthmother for an infant. The brain is not capable of remembering that at birth. You said it yourself that "the hippocampus is immature at birth"
The limbic brain can recall physical pain and that is why I said trauma such as sexual or physical abuse can have a phychological effect on an infant (even though they can't recal why) but most of these infant adoptions are within a few weeks of birth with no physical trauma....emotions are another thing altogether. How can you have emotional memory when you haven't learned about emotions? You can sense something is wrong with the mother? but that would imply the infant would have a memory of that...hmmm. Round and round it goes.

"Explicit memory involves conscious recollection, compared with implicit memory which is an unconscious, non-intentional form of memory. Remembering a specific driving lesson is an example of explicit memory, while improving your driving skills during the lesson is an example of implicit memory."

Julie said...

We are finally finding some common ground, getting closer to our respective point of departure with regard to our "discussions."

As I basically said in the last post, you will get no argument from me regarding explicit memory and its development. It is, apparently, the understanding of implicit memory which is our specific point of departure.

Unfortunately, I have some obligations to fulfill for the next few days and so I cannot continue to pursue this right now.

I am just happy to be able to recognize our point of departure at this point. Let's talk again soon about implicit memory. Thanks for taking the time to stay with the discussion this far!

Anonymous said...

here are some more to add to your list:

Not all adoptive parents are selfish and/or entitled.

Not all adoptive parents are slave owners who "paid" for the children and "own" them.