I was born in Sept 1964 in Detroit. Everyone around me was freaked out and sad from the riots in Detroit and the death of Bobby Kennedy as well, and I am sure this affected me, can feel the heaviness of it still. I think it is why I was always a clown, a joker, to cheer them up. My job.
My brother and his wife's first kid died a week after being born due to a heart defect. His death drove my semi-stable sister-in-law over to bonkers territory and left her there. My brother changed significantly, as well, very irritabke, morose, no joy in life, to this day. They went on to have two physically healthy sons, but those two boys, who are now adults, have always been a little off. I'm sure the in utero stress was high and then the constant fear/protectionism by my sister-in-law overwhelmed those two kids. As teenagers, they'd stay with me over a weekend sometimes, and just like my childhood, I gave them only a few rules--stay together, don't shoot each other (I have guns for hunting, yes the guns are locked up, but...), and be back by dark. It was almost impossible for me to get them to leave the house, they had been so smothered. They just wanted to stay inside, they felt safer.
Now, with covid lockdowns and zoom schools, we have created an entire generation of sheep. By accident, I am sure...
I think it's a ridiculous study with a lack of understanding of emotion. A highly emotionally-reactive mother is going to stay that way (unless she gets help), and that will have an expected impact on the infant.
Their thesis is that physical changes in the fetus are the reason for emotional difficulties later on. Have they ever experienced a crazy mother? Have they ever seen the faces of babies, infants, small children and teens as the mother systematically destroys their self-worth? The problems those people go through are not caused by "stress during pregnancy".
The study does not say that in utero stress is responsible for all emotional problems later in life, just an increase in emotional problems later in life. Presumably, due to the quasi-random nature of the study, one would expect a more or less equal quantity of emotionally reactive mothers in both groups.
The factors, an unstable or deranged or mentally ill woman, and external stress factors during pregnancy are not in conflict or mutually exclusive: rather they would build upon one another making the hypothetical stressed-out abusive mother one of the cases on the tail end of the curve.
Stress and the brain's chemical reaction to it does have neurological consequences, that's old knowledge really. For one thing, it tends to increase the risk that the children become more aggressive with lower thresholds for using violence and also worse forms of violence (adopted children, especially if in interracial families, are exceptionally prone to violent almost psychotically so, beaviour). It also tends to impair the higher cognitive functions, and create behaviour-originated learning disabilites: learned disabilities if you will.
Do note: none of the above is to be read as any kind of value judgement re: children in these situations and circumstances. As a retired teacher I know full well the value of being able to create for this kind of children a calm, quiet and stress & anxiety-free environment - a place where they can realign themeselves and realise that life does not have to be the way it is, that they can learn to handle their problems and that they can aspire to do, and be, better in order to feel better.
The thesis is that a one-time stressful event, while the fetus is in the womb, and even if the mother is otherwise emotionally healthy and happy, will lead to bad consequences in later life for that child. This isn't proven by saying those kids are given Ritalin later in life.
And no, a one-time "stressful", as opposed to traumatic, event in the life of an emotionally healthy child doesn't "change their brain" and make them violent. It simply doesn't happen. If you believe this, post a picture of a brain scan that is 100 percent accurate in showing this. Psychiatrists and neuroscientists have never been able to do this.
Ah. I think you are misinterpreting the results. The conclusion is not that stress in utero will necessarily lead to worse mental health outcomes later in life in every individual nor does the study conclude that this is the only or even worse mechanism. Rather, the study holds everything equal with the exception of the timing of the stressor (prior to birth versus shortly after). To dispute that point, you'd have to argue that the women whose mothers died before childbirth versus after treated their children differently. I also would note that the stress from a close maternal relative dying is not like the stress of getting hit by a car and walking away without a scratch. It is long term stress with peaks and valleys in terms of impact.
Makes sense.
I was born in Sept 1964 in Detroit. Everyone around me was freaked out and sad from the riots in Detroit and the death of Bobby Kennedy as well, and I am sure this affected me, can feel the heaviness of it still. I think it is why I was always a clown, a joker, to cheer them up. My job.
My brother and his wife's first kid died a week after being born due to a heart defect. His death drove my semi-stable sister-in-law over to bonkers territory and left her there. My brother changed significantly, as well, very irritabke, morose, no joy in life, to this day. They went on to have two physically healthy sons, but those two boys, who are now adults, have always been a little off. I'm sure the in utero stress was high and then the constant fear/protectionism by my sister-in-law overwhelmed those two kids. As teenagers, they'd stay with me over a weekend sometimes, and just like my childhood, I gave them only a few rules--stay together, don't shoot each other (I have guns for hunting, yes the guns are locked up, but...), and be back by dark. It was almost impossible for me to get them to leave the house, they had been so smothered. They just wanted to stay inside, they felt safer.
Now, with covid lockdowns and zoom schools, we have created an entire generation of sheep. By accident, I am sure...
Great information
I think it's a ridiculous study with a lack of understanding of emotion. A highly emotionally-reactive mother is going to stay that way (unless she gets help), and that will have an expected impact on the infant.
Their thesis is that physical changes in the fetus are the reason for emotional difficulties later on. Have they ever experienced a crazy mother? Have they ever seen the faces of babies, infants, small children and teens as the mother systematically destroys their self-worth? The problems those people go through are not caused by "stress during pregnancy".
The study does not say that in utero stress is responsible for all emotional problems later in life, just an increase in emotional problems later in life. Presumably, due to the quasi-random nature of the study, one would expect a more or less equal quantity of emotionally reactive mothers in both groups.
The factors, an unstable or deranged or mentally ill woman, and external stress factors during pregnancy are not in conflict or mutually exclusive: rather they would build upon one another making the hypothetical stressed-out abusive mother one of the cases on the tail end of the curve.
Stress and the brain's chemical reaction to it does have neurological consequences, that's old knowledge really. For one thing, it tends to increase the risk that the children become more aggressive with lower thresholds for using violence and also worse forms of violence (adopted children, especially if in interracial families, are exceptionally prone to violent almost psychotically so, beaviour). It also tends to impair the higher cognitive functions, and create behaviour-originated learning disabilites: learned disabilities if you will.
Do note: none of the above is to be read as any kind of value judgement re: children in these situations and circumstances. As a retired teacher I know full well the value of being able to create for this kind of children a calm, quiet and stress & anxiety-free environment - a place where they can realign themeselves and realise that life does not have to be the way it is, that they can learn to handle their problems and that they can aspire to do, and be, better in order to feel better.
The thesis is that a one-time stressful event, while the fetus is in the womb, and even if the mother is otherwise emotionally healthy and happy, will lead to bad consequences in later life for that child. This isn't proven by saying those kids are given Ritalin later in life.
And no, a one-time "stressful", as opposed to traumatic, event in the life of an emotionally healthy child doesn't "change their brain" and make them violent. It simply doesn't happen. If you believe this, post a picture of a brain scan that is 100 percent accurate in showing this. Psychiatrists and neuroscientists have never been able to do this.
Ah. I think you are misinterpreting the results. The conclusion is not that stress in utero will necessarily lead to worse mental health outcomes later in life in every individual nor does the study conclude that this is the only or even worse mechanism. Rather, the study holds everything equal with the exception of the timing of the stressor (prior to birth versus shortly after). To dispute that point, you'd have to argue that the women whose mothers died before childbirth versus after treated their children differently. I also would note that the stress from a close maternal relative dying is not like the stress of getting hit by a car and walking away without a scratch. It is long term stress with peaks and valleys in terms of impact.