Erica Komisar wrote a book called “Being There: Why Prioritizing Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters.” She is a Jewish, Upper West Side liberal psychoanalyst. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-politicization-of-motherhood-1509144044 "The premise of Ms. Komisar’s book—backed by research in psychology, neuroscience and epigenetics—is that “mothers are biologically necessary for babies,” and not only for the obvious reasons of pregnancy and birth. “Babies are much more neurologically fragile than we’ve ever understood,” Ms. Komisar says. She cites the view of one neuroscientist, Nim Tottenham of Columbia University, “that babies are born without a central nervous system” and “mothers are the central nervous system to babies,” especially for the first nine months after birth. What does that mean? “Every time a mother comforts a baby in distress, she’s actually regulating that baby’s emotions from the outside in. After three years, the baby internalizes that ability to regulate their emotions, but not until then.” For that reason, mothers “need to be there as much as possible, both physically and emotionally, for children in the first 1,000 days.” The regulatory mechanism is oxytocin, a neurotransmitter popularly known as the “love hormone.” Oxytocin, Ms. Komisar explains, “is a buffer against stress.” Mothers produce it when they give birth, breastfeed or otherwise nurture their children. “The more oxytocin the mother produces, the more she produces it in the baby” by communicating via eye contact, touch and gentle talk. The baby’s brain in turn develops oxytocin receptors, which allow for self-regulation at a later age. Women produce more oxytocin than men do, which answers the obvious question of why fathers aren’t as well-suited as mothers for this sort of “sensitive, empathetic nurturing.” People “want to feel that men and women are fungible,” observes Ms. Komisar—but they aren’t, at least not when it comes to parental roles. Fathers produce a “different nurturing hormone” known as vasopressin, “what we call the protective, aggressive hormone.”" So what's the problem? Oh yeah, she has run afoul of the liberal media for having drawn conclusions based on solid science about the need for mothers to be with their children a lot more than the typical liberal mindset assumes. It just so happens her research supports something most conservatives have intuited for a long time. "Christian radio stations “interviewed me and loved me,” she says. She went on “Fox & Friends,” and “the host was like, your book is the best thing since the invention of the refrigerator.” But “I couldn’t get on NPR,” and “I was rejected wholesale—particularly in New York—by the liberal press.” She did appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” but seconds before the camera went live, she says, the interviewer told her: “I don’t believe in the premise of your book at all. I don’t like your book.”" In her mind, her research shows we need even more paid maternity leave than the most generous proposals would provide. That's a good liberal/progressive policy proposition and just the sort of thing you'd expect from someone with her background. Doesn't matter. The science doesn't matter. She has run a foul of the liberal/progressive agenda and for that, she needs to be shut down. Sad.
Is that the article you've quoted there, verbatim... or is some of that your take on it? I can't tell because it's behind a paywall. I'd be interested in the science of any studies although, tbh, I suspect a lot the discussion it creates rather ignore the fact that many mothers aren't available because they're working. Frankly, they'd probably love to be around if they had the chance. But, leaving this particular issue, the central premise, (that people want something to be true and that changes their willingness to accept the science), is pretty much unarguable, I'd say.
What I put in quotes is from the article. The basic point of the article is that someone who by all accounts is a reliable progressive/liberal -- who also happens to believe in the sanctity of science and all that it means, is being shunned by her own kind for reaching scientific conclusions that do not comport with a general belief of the left. Or at least her research calls into serious question some more commonly held beliefs. Progressives love to bash conservatives for being "anti-science" - and rightfully so -- but that cuts both ways when a sacred dogma is at risk.
I think that the visceral reaction is for families of working mothers to tell this lady to ****** off. As a new parent myself, the "Do's and Don'ts" are overwhelming. Making mothers feel even worse for having a career/job, especially when it's a necessity to provide for the family, is not helpful at all. I'm sure there are plenty out there, but I don't know of any of my married friends who wouldn't love it if one of them could stay home full time with the kids at least until they get into kindergarten. It would be helpful if, beyond just publishing this research and proscription, if the author would also make explicit that this study is not intended to increase the already unreasonable pressure on parents, but to create a conversation on policy changes and corporate responsibility to make stay-at-home parenting feasible for more families and career-minded women. If this is what her message is, then kudos. Often times, scientists and reporters are pretty poor at communicating the actual breadth of research.
(emphasis added) Her hypothesis is plausible, and I wouldn't be surprised at all surprised if it's correct; but I have no idea whether it's "solid science" -- and I suspect neither do you, unless you've looked at her study in detail, in which case please do go into the science in more detail than the Wall-Street-Journal-article-paraphrasing you seem to suggest that you're doing here. Perhaps her work was done very well -- I have no idea. But even if I could see past the WSJ paywall, I still wouldn't be much closer to knowing: if the Wall Street Journal claims something is solid science, from my experience with the WSJ's writing on science, that's a million miles from persuasive. If, OTOH, you've looked into it in more detail and you think her work really is "solid science", then please do expand on it. Obviously getting into the science would be more than appropriate for this thread (especially given how little traffic this thread has gotten lately); and I'd enjoy it, although it's not my particular field of research, because it's a topic I have some personal interest in. I'd be particularly interested in whether she sees a basis for diagnoses of borderline personality disorder in her results, and if so, how she makes and supports that argument. But the really frustrating thing is that, while you could have simply brought up the science and encouraged a discussion about the science, you instead saw it as an opportunity to start another "political world view A has this right/political world view B has this wrong" pissing match. As you yourself say, the main point of your posts is not the results of her research, but rather the allegation that liberals don't like the results of her research. That's interesting, but it's not science. For the most part, this thread has (fairly surprisingly) stuck to discussing science, when it's been active at all, while political disputes about what to conclude from scientists' work have been in other threads or in their own threads. I mean, there are a jillion threads in this forum where people write that "conservatives/liberals/whatever suck"; does one of the few threads that's not like that, and has more or less just stuck to science, have to be yet another one? If her conclusions were being dismissed by the scientific community for no valid scientific reason, then that would seem to me an important development to discuss in the Science Thread. But if her conclusions are indeed being dismissed by liberals simply because they don't fit liberals' world view -- that's absolutely worthy of discussion IMO, but it's not science. It's politics.
I'm intrigued enough by the article to buy the book and read it -- and when I do, I'll let you know about the science. It wasn't that the WSJ thought the science was compelling, it was that she did. I thought the conclusions she reached to be pretty profound, with huge potential ramifications for public policy. Like I said, she sees this as strong evidence to support even greater maternity benefits in the workplace than the most liberal proposals I've seen. Ironically, it appears the left doesn't want to hear about it. The right does, but for different reasons - and I'm pretty sure they won't support the sorts of policies her research calls for. Oh, and since I'm not a behavioral scientist, I'm going to have to rely on my own judgment about whether to believe their claims about scientific validity, just like I do when climate scientists tell me something. I assume you're the same way. If her research was not peer reviewed or just a bunch of unfounded assertions, my guess is you'd hear more about that than anything. And since the WSJ paywall seems to be an issue, here's the link to Amazon: "Compassionate and balanced, and focusing on the emotional health of children and moms alike, this book shows parents how to give their little ones the best chance for developing into healthy and loving adults. Based on more than two decades of clinical work, established psychoanalytic theory, and the most cutting-edge neurobiological research on caregiving, attachment, and brain development..."
I take your point but I suppose it's only fair to point out that she very well might be making suggestions as to a possible public policy response. But it's also true to say that, from a purely scientific perspective it's perfectly valid to say 'This is an issue and something that needs to be done', (mothers spending more time with the child than fathers), even if she ISN'T suggesting specific policies. IOW it might well be important research either way. Of course, to be clear, I haven't the foggiest idea whether it is or not... I'm just saying.
Based on @roadkit 's last post: It seems as though she's in the right and that the LSM hasn't actually invested the time in reading her book before interviewing her.
Now this is just downright too scary. Imagine the implications of this. I mean I can see the advantages in it interpreting hospital 'dumb machines' but what happens when it starts surfing for itself and getting into political and military records. Definitely worth reading. Warning: Could cause loss of sleep. Checkmate humanity: In four hours, a robot taught itself chess, then beat a grandmaster with moves never devised in the game's 1,500-year history and the implications are terrifying http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...obot-taught-never-seen-chess-moves-hours.html
As you are the 1st one to capitulate, the Director always looking for fresh meat new faces, you are being vetted for the Press Secretary post. Kinda like a cross between CJ and Toby without credibility. HAIL GRIMES!!!
Some caution is worthwhile. We are, after all, talking about a story from the Daily Mail, which in terms of respectability is at about the same level as the Weekly World News. Fox News is more trustworthy than the Daily Mail, and that's saying something. It's the Daily Mail's style to play everything up as earth-shattering. I can't see how this is a bigger story than AlphaGo (essentially an earlier iteration of the same DeepMind neural network system) was a few years ago; Geoffrey Hinton, an expert on neural networks at UToronto, thought it was a big story amongst AI stories of 2017, but still didn't see it as so big a breakthrough.
I feel you. He's the worst. The only thing that keeps me even keel is podsaveamerica, podsavetheworld, trumpcast and lovettorleaveit. He's gonna have to get impeached. Come on mueller keep grinding!
Repped... for inclining people to watch Potholer54 vids as much as anything https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCljE1ODdSF7LS9xx9eWq0GQ