yeah I think that would be fair. But I believe that attachment is a pretty underated factor in psychopathology in general.
I noticed when evaluating serial killers and Sexually Violent Predators was that there was a signifant rate of adoption (implying some previous attachment disruptions) or documented histories of profound neglect. Much more so than say physical abuse which is what you would find with most criminals. I wonder some times if we are asking the wrong question sometimes when we go looking for what “caused” someone to become a psychopath. Maybe it was something that didn’t happen, namely attachment. Now obviously this is a profound example (which leads to profound results) but I think normal attachment problems lead to all sorts of pathologys (i.e. insecure attachment leading to anxiety)
I think you are quite right.
Exceedingly right.
Of course . . . I start with the conviction that . . .
TRAIN UP A CHILD IN THE WAY HE SHOULD GO [the natural DNA, BENT, PERSONALITY of that child and in keeping with God’s outline for his life] AND WHEN HE IS OLD, HE WILL NOT DEPART FROM IT.
I have heard profs and even pastors say . . . OH, THE PARENTS WERE WONDERFUL PARENTS, DID EVERYTHING RIGHT—THE KID JUST TWISTED OFF. Not the parent’s fault AT ALL.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT TO BE THE CASE. NEVER. Within 2-5 questions, I could pinpoint where the parents went seriously wrong. And usually, it was in LACK OF SUFFICIENT ATTACHMENT MATCHED TO THAT CHILD’S NEEDS.
RELIGIOUS [vs spiritual] parents are keen to quote SPARE THE ROD AND SPOIL THE CHILD and totally neglect PROVOKE NOT YOUR CHILDREN TO WRATH.
Doesn’t work that way.
DISCIPLINE WITHOUT *SUFFICIENT* RELATIONSHIP WILL ALWAYS *PRODUCE* REBELLION.
And rebellion seeds all manner of internal and external evils, imho.
My 2 cents pontifications anyway.
Have you EVER found a man in the criminal justice system where the FATHER was healthily affectionate, emotionally bonded the first 5 years of life?
What about the first 8 years of life?
Then I think 11-15 is another critical period.
Fathers don’t know how. Are too exhausted. Are too needy to give much . . . etc. etc. etc.
Love these exchanges, Doc. Thanks.
I should get you the link and ask you to listen to him . . . a PhD in engineering or physics or some such . . . brilliant enough that he worked for the ruling oligarchy military scientist types when he was
13 years old on . . . he’s now 70 something.
Anyway—he asserted something a bit startling . . . I wish I had it verbatim . . . in my head, but I don’t.
Something to the effect that
UNLESS A CHILD
1. was put on it’s mother’s breast etc. the first hours after birth . . . it’s brain etc. development would be less than it could have been
and
2. unless the child had both father and mother contributing emotionally . . . and this is the part I have a hard time articulating . . . it was like emotionally plus—plus some spiritual dimension/ some ‘energy’ dimension . . . something—both male and female the first years of the child’s life—affectionately and every other way . . .
THAT THE CHILD WOULD BE OF NO LASTING GOOD TO SOCIETY IT’S WHOLE LIFE.
That was a bit of a global statement. Extremely stark. Thankfully, some of us have proved him at least partly to largely wrong. However, I think there’s something there in what he’s saying.