3 ms·

Attachment theory has been extensively researched. I’m all for alternative views - and entirely agree that early peers are significant; however, there are some

Attachment theory has been extensively researched. I’m all for alternative views - and entirely agree that early peers are significant; however, there are some fairly regular, predictable, and significant outcomes that come from parent-child relationships. I don’t think it can be so easily dismissed.

kqr 6y ago
All of the significant ones I know can equally well be explained by genetics or early peers. Do you have a concrete example where these are controlled for and the effect remains?
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  My wife is the one who does this for a living - but my understanding is that, for example, 1) disorganized attachment is not predictive of later social, emotional, educational and mental health problems but is a moderate to significant risk factor, 2) infant disorganized attachment expression should not be used to assume parental abuse, but has a strong correlation with parent-child relationships featuring abuse, neglect, emotional dependency, etc., 3) while a risk factor, other safe/stable/nuturing relationships early in life can mitigate the negative potential effects. I don’t have specific citations, and I’m not arguing it’s rock solid, settled science, but suggesting parent-child relationships may have no effect at all is out on the edge of reasonable.
  - kqr 6y ago
    Despite what one may think, I agree with most of what you said. Only with some additional observations: 1) We would expect attachment problems to be a risk factor purely based on genetics and environment. Which is indeed what we find. Personality traits like that have stronger correlation with a) your biological parents than the parents you grew up with, and b) your friends' parents than the parents you grew up with. 2) Absolutely. The way a child views their relationship with their parents is a huge signal about what their relationship with their parents is like. 3) Yes, because environment effects are the next most important thing, after genetics. Genetics and environment outside of the home is strongly correlated with parent relationship, which is why this is so hard to study and get right. It is possible to control for those factors though, and the result is surprising -- but makes sense from an evolutionary hunter-gatherer perspective.
- sjg007 6y ago
  You should read up on Russian orphans.
  - kqr 6y ago
    And Romanian ones. I have. Here's what I learned: A complete lack of social bonding during the first few years of life is very detrimental. Shitty bonding, or bonding with non-parents (even peers, such as siblings or friends) means it's still possible to learn to lead a normal life. The problem with the orphanages you refer to was that not only were staff not allowing children to bond with them -- children were shifted around specifically in order to prevent them from bonding with peers. This incredibly cruel thing was done because they thought it would be worse for children to have their bond torn than not have it in the first place. Turns out developing brains need some baseline level of social interaction to grow the correct structures.
    - sjg007 6y ago
      This is why attachment "disorders" are considered along a spectrum. Yes, initial "shitty bonding" e.g. insecure attachment with your mother or father can be overcome, it could be a grandparent, uncle or someone else who provides the attachment you need. And what we are talking about really is stable emotional co-regulation. That's the whole point of the article and modern attachment theory based therapy as far as I understand it.

kqr 6y ago

All of the significant ones I know can equally well be explained by genetics or early peers. Do you have a concrete example where these are controlled for and the effect remains?

germinalphrase 6y ago
My wife is the one who does this for a living - but my understanding is that, for example, 1) disorganized attachment is not predictive of later social, emotional, educational and mental health problems but is a moderate to significant risk factor, 2) infant disorganized attachment expression should not be used to assume parental abuse, but has a strong correlation with parent-child relationships featuring abuse, neglect, emotional dependency, etc., 3) while a risk factor, other safe/stable/nuturing relationships early in life can mitigate the negative potential effects. I don’t have specific citations, and I’m not arguing it’s rock solid, settled science, but suggesting parent-child relationships may have no effect at all is out on the edge of reasonable.
- kqr 6y ago
  Despite what one may think, I agree with most of what you said. Only with some additional observations: 1) We would expect attachment problems to be a risk factor purely based on genetics and environment. Which is indeed what we find. Personality traits like that have stronger correlation with a) your biological parents than the parents you grew up with, and b) your friends' parents than the parents you grew up with. 2) Absolutely. The way a child views their relationship with their parents is a huge signal about what their relationship with their parents is like. 3) Yes, because environment effects are the next most important thing, after genetics. Genetics and environment outside of the home is strongly correlated with parent relationship, which is why this is so hard to study and get right. It is possible to control for those factors though, and the result is surprising -- but makes sense from an evolutionary hunter-gatherer perspective.
sjg007 6y ago
You should read up on Russian orphans.
- kqr 6y ago
  And Romanian ones. I have. Here's what I learned: A complete lack of social bonding during the first few years of life is very detrimental. Shitty bonding, or bonding with non-parents (even peers, such as siblings or friends) means it's still possible to learn to lead a normal life. The problem with the orphanages you refer to was that not only were staff not allowing children to bond with them -- children were shifted around specifically in order to prevent them from bonding with peers. This incredibly cruel thing was done because they thought it would be worse for children to have their bond torn than not have it in the first place. Turns out developing brains need some baseline level of social interaction to grow the correct structures.
  - sjg007 6y ago
    This is why attachment "disorders" are considered along a spectrum. Yes, initial "shitty bonding" e.g. insecure attachment with your mother or father can be overcome, it could be a grandparent, uncle or someone else who provides the attachment you need. And what we are talking about really is stable emotional co-regulation. That's the whole point of the article and modern attachment theory based therapy as far as I understand it.