I am surprised at the responses I received to my email, b/c this is what I wrote:
"It occurred to me that from an adaptive perspective it made no sense for
babies to have “high-need” personalities. This does not improve chances
of survival so it is not adaptive. I am not saying the behaviors are not
adaptive, but I do not believe that the idea of such a personality-type
is adaptive."
I did not say that the behaviours are NOT adaptive. I said that they are. I said that the idea of a "high-need
personality" is not adaptive. I also made it really clear that my babies were absolutely attached --all the time--
and still exhibited in different ways the compensatory behaviors one sees in children whose nervous/digestive
systems are out of balance. Too many of these babies are simply labeled "high-need" or described as having
"intense personalities" as if this is just "how they are". It is NOT just how they are--it is how they have
adapted to stress. Not the stress of abandonment, isolated sleep, artificial-feeding and so on--but the stress of
being uncomfortable in their own skins. My daughter almost never cried when I held her after the first 6 weeks,
but her nervous system was always struggling to manage in the world. It was not her personality, but it sure
directed the development of her personality.
Should we really not question whether personality best develops under the pressures of compensation and
neuro-physiologic stress?
I am very aware=2
0of Thom Hartmann's very interesting work. I think we are talking about something quite different
here. I am not referring to babies who need to be kangarood--b/c these are all normal babies, IMO. I am referring to
babies like mine (I had no attachment learning curve--they were ALWAYS attached). And like the 4th baby of a
friend--born at home--attached always--and never happy. Today we know he has a posterior TT, needed a lot of
CST and has significant food allergies. He has development delays and other issues commonly associated with
poor gut health. Like the baby of a client who could not be consoled and when he was quiet, he looked like a bomb
ready to go off--hyper-alert, hyper-sensitive--only removing allergens, healing mom's gut, clipping his
posterior TT and detoxing his little body of heavy metals and candida have made him a whole new baby.
Yes, their behaviours were adaptive, or more rightly compensatory and highly communicative. But they were not
demanding more responsive mothering--they were demanding to have us hear and understand how they were
experiencing the world. IMO, every compensation presents a risk to the ability of the organism to thrive, b/c
such compensations are responses to stress and often disorganize the organism even more.
Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA
Intuitive Parenting Network LLC
"It occurred to me that from an adaptive perspective it made no sense =
for babies to have high-need personalities."
Actually there is some evidence from th
e developing world that high need =
or demanding babies are more likely to survive than their more placid =
counterparts in situations when their families find themselves in =
stressful situations like conflict, famine, natural disaster. I'll try =
to find the reference.
Nina Berry
Yes - I am puzzled by Jennifer thinking there is no 'adaptive value'
in exhibiting 'high needs'. Would be interested in your reference,
Nina.
What we know for sure is that babies do not behave 'randomly'.
Healthy babies are always, always, communicating their needs to us in
some way, trying to tell us something that will help us help them. I
am certain that many of us here find that breastfeeding support is
focussed on enabling mothers to 'translate' their babies' requests,
which can be seriously counter-cultural in societies that believe the
only 'happy' baby is one that feeds in 20 minutes and who sleeps in a
crib between times.
While a baby who screams a lot of the time (like Jennifer describes
her first baby) deserves some careful investigation, if a baby is
mostly happy when co-sleeping. held closely, fed responsively,
handled sensitively...well, is that 'high needs'? Or just normal?
When babies don't get these needs met (and most will not), many will
adapt and 'make do' with what they do get and seem 'happy enough'.
Maybe the 'high needs' babies are the ones who decide not to settle
for less than what they really need - and there could easily be an
adapt
ive value in that :)
Heather Welford Neil
There was an article a few years back about babies dying in Japan, they were
called "silent babies." Highly sought after, they didn't make a peep. Sat in
their rock-a-roos, and slowly died. Parents liked them (well, until the baby
died) because they were quiet and undemanding.
One huge generalization is that many of the mothers of "high needs" babies
seem (to me) to prefer to not have to deal with the baby as much as the baby
would like. Again, that is a generalization, but there have been cases
presented to me where the baby has a flat head from sitting in a car seat
all day, and the mother complains that the baby "won't stop crying." They
term their infant a "high need" baby, when actually they have a normal baby
whose needs are being ignored. (like the mother who came to me with a
"high-need" failure to thrive baby, and the mother would only nurse every
4-5 hours, despite the baby crying all the time and documented weight loss.
Mother finally realized that while she felt breastfeeding was "gross," her
baby needed to be fed, so they finally started him on formula at 5 months.
Today, this child is 5 years old, and I would not term his ability to get
along with others to be normal).
Part of this can be blamed on advertising, where "normal" appears to be the
baby who is content to lay in a crib and watch mobiles all day, that's what
a magazine baby does. TV babies don't ever have needs, they're happily
laying in a crib
, or happily sitting in a car seat. If they make a peep, it
is because they are a "demanding, high-need" baby.
So, perhaps, the focus of the public is what is at fault. The concentration
of many babies in day care who "need to" stay quiet and placid in their
seats plays into the factorials, as well. Although the staff:infant ratio is
supposed to be no more than 8 infants at a ratio of 1 staff per 4 infants,
that's exhausting. Considering many people in these positions are not paid
big dollars, and the turnover is rapid, it's a bonus if a mother brings in a
silent baby. Staff encourages the mother/parents to keep the baby silent,
either directly, or indirectly. Most babies in the US are in a form of day
care, during some point of infancy.
Looking at the big picture, there are lots of clues. The mother's ability to
cope, the baby's true temperament and needs, the caregiver situation,
friends and family. And, yes, allergies and sensitivities.
I thought my eldest was a high-needs baby. Turned out he was sensitive to
milk, and needed to be held more than I realized (I thought babies were
supposed to like the crib...). Thought my second baby was high-needs. Turned
out she preferred the outdoors (at 15, she still does). By my third, he
lived in a sling, and I didn't have time to think about anything. Worked
well for my fourth, too. Interesting how society gave me different thoughts
on my babies' personalities, and how I finally figured out they were normal.
Sam Doak
0A
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
