Jersey Girl wrote:I will try.
Okey dokey *puts on quiet but thoughtful cap*
As I indicated in a previous post to Runtu, I wanted to ultimately discuss bonding and attachment as it relates to human survival. You see, in your earlier post you stated that you think that the purpose of sexual relationships is procreation. Baby makin'. :-) And while I tend to agree with that, I think there is another step in that process that you aren't addressing or maybe you are and I'm not "listening" to you closely enough.
You have me curious.
Let me begin, possibly, at the beginning.
When a newborn baby interacts with a primary caregiver (let's make it a mother for the sake of simplicity) the baby and mother engage in what can best be described as an "exchange". An example, the baby cries, mother responds with food/comfort/verbal expression. The baby learns that when it cries, it will consistently draw a response from it's mother. These primary circular reactions are the basis for the survival of the baby.
And this process is also repeated in the mother on a non-conscious scale believe it or not. That's why mom's can sometimes hear cries of small children you wouldn't expect them to. But they can rarely hear children other than their own.
Not only does the baby need a response that brings physical nourishment, it needs (for lack of a better way to describe it) a "reason to live". The reason to live is based on the response the baby gets from the mother.
Mmm.... I don't quite understand, but let me read on and see if I can get what's going on.
Let me show you the opposite of what I'm talking about to demonstrate what happens to a baby who is deprived of responses. The best example that I can easily put my hands on (identify) right now are the Baby Houses in Russia.
The Baby Houses in Russia are notorius for low caregiver:child ratios. That is to say, there are too many babies and not enough people to take care of them. The babies are often left in groups that are confined to their cribs. Their bottles might be propped (baby not held when feeding), diapers changed when caregivers get around to it, they are not held/rocked/talked to and essentially neglected in every way, and deprived of human interaction.
The reason this is a negative effect on the baby is because it essentially 'isolates them' from humanity, from social relationships, that it is.
Actually, if you want to know, this is one of the dangers of Autism as well. We don't understand other people without being taught the special technique, and so we slowly devolve and become 'hermits' of sorts. Not concerned about others' feelings because we don't understand them, and don't feel a need to concern ourselves with them. Teaching how to read body language/verbal inflections solves this though.
In some cases, the baby suffers from "failure to thrive" which follows a certain course such as, the baby cries, no one answers. When no one answers the baby learns not to cry to signal when it is hungry because it hasn't learned that a response will follow. Some of the babies begin to self stimulate by rocking their bodies or banging their heads against the crib sides. So strong is the human need to know that one exists that the baby will bang its own head against an inanimate object to feel itself in reference to someone or something else. This is perhaps the last in a series of attempts that the baby will make on behalf of it's own survival, and then the baby begins to shut down. It goes silent because its cries have illicited no response. It either dies because it stops seeking food or it grows to be a malnourished older child whose psyche has also been malnourished because it has lacked the human response that makes it possible for the child to develop into a "whole" human being.
Yes, if they die, it's because of malnourishment. But the second, isn't because of a malnourished mind - it's because there are no bonds to society whatsoever. No bonds to other people whatsoever. It is a very dangerous state of mind.
What's interesting, is if you can manage to teach a person like this to open up, he will have bonds with everyone. The exact opposite the way he was. Of course, doing so is difficult.
The child who suffers from attachment disorders (attachment to a primary caregiver being the first form of human attachment) is the child who is destructive to itself and others.
The reason being because of a lack of human bonds. I was like that for a while... even limited human bonds can be very dangerous. Because of that reason... destruction to self and others. I didn't hurt any others at that time period... but I felt very little reason to live. There wasn't anything worth living for. Tough times, back then.
Of course, the reverse, as said, turns the person into something remarkable. It turns them into a near opposite of what they were. It is the approach that should be taken, for it contains many good things.
The healthy relationship model that should have been learned shortly after birth was completely absent from the child's experience. This is not a child who will thrive in relationships or in life. It has no reason to set goals and succeed in achieving them. It views other human beings as "things" and lives a life guided by sociopathy.
As said, then it becomes up to someone who helps, or up to the child themselves. There will be some children who turn themselves around. But there will be others who have to take someone else. But if someone else does it, that person will become their mother; their trust.
Although I don't tend to offend with this comment - part of the reason I disagree with atheism so much is because it too can lead to these sort of thoughts in a certain way. It is one of the bases of them. As said, I'd prefer people didn't get offended with this statement though.