A postscript to my last posting. I nearly forgot this from Joan: > http://www.springerlink.com/content/r383064374376383/
>This is a link to one article in 1976 about Massie's analysis >of very early interactions of mothers with their babies. His >subjects were obtained from the clients who came to his >psychiatric clinic with 'autistic-like' children around the age >of 3. He realized that interviews with the parents was rarely >of much use so proceeded to ask the parents if they had any >early home movies that were available when their child was an >infant and many did. He also solicited home movies of parents >with their infants who at similar ages (3-4) had no evidence of >emotional disorders. When comparing the interactions via a >frame-by-frame analysis, he noted a distinct and disturbing pattern >in the style of interactions with his parents who had autistic-like >children. That is, the interactions revealed an inability to read >and respond appropriately to the basic emotional signals of their infants. I had noted that the article cited was not in fact about autistic children, and assumed that Joan gave the reference to show that Massie did use controls with similar studies. However, with Stephen's reprimand still very much in mind, I see that Massie refers to comparisons with "control babies", but again does not say the controls were blind (as Joan's accurate account above indicates). Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org ************************************************* Subject: Re: MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism - Times Online From: "Joan Warmbold" <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 19:10:16 -0600 (CST) http://www.springerlink.com/content/r383064374376383/ This is a link to one article in 1976 about Massie's analysis of very early interactions of mothers with their babies. His subjects were obtained from the clients who came to his psychiatric clinic with 'autistic-like' children around the age of 3. He realized that interviews with the parents was rarely of much use so proceeded to ask the parents if they had any early home movies that were available when their child was an infant and many did. He also solicited home movies of parents with their infants who at similar ages (3-4) had no evidence of emotional disorders. When comparing the interactions via a frame-by-frame analysis, he noted a distinct and disturbing pattern in the style of interactions with his parents who had autistic-like children. That is, the interactions revealed an inability to read and respond appropriately to the basic emotional signals of their infants. However, it is very important to point out that Massie presents his case studies in the context of the parent's own family backgrounds as he is clearly wishes to make the scientific community aware that his clients were caring, loving parents who simply didn't have the emotional capacity or awareness at that point in their lives to appropriately respond to the signals of their infants. He clearly did not feel that there was any evidence of intentional rejection. One sad example of such is of a mother (Dad's are usually taking the home movies of course) who wouldn't let her daughter make eye-contact from the get-go. Now, this same mother would hold her baby girl close and snuggle her but would position her head so that the her daughter was continually rebuffed in her attempts to look into her mother's eyes. When Massie questioned the mother about this puzzling behavior, the mother said that she felt self-conscious making eye-contact with her baby girl. Understanding the role of early experiences in the development of children is perceived as 'blaming' parent's for any problems their children develop--a perception I feel we can easily lay at the feet of Bruno Bettleheim and is total nonsense. Most parents do the best they can and some children are more challenging than others. But who is the adult in the interaction between an adult and their child and, therefore, the one that should be capable of encouraging more appropriate and healthy responses from their infants?! Judith Harris's carries this notion of children causing their parents to not parent well to the extreme. Catch this--she actually states something to the effect that 'if parents beat their children, is it not likely due to the fact that their children were more difficult and unlikeable than parents who do not beat their children?' What is more challenging than parenting?! And we parents do the best we can with the emotional sensitivity and resources we bring to the task. But we need to provide parents with far more emotional and informational support than we do at present. And I feel we are so intent on ignoring the role of early experience due to the political incorrectness of such, that we are committing a travesty against the science of human behavior as well as to parents and their infants. Joan [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
