PTSD Research: Distinct Gene Activity Patterns from Childhood Abuse - Science Daily

[STer]

Research on how child abuse can lead to changes in genes, which then leads to underlying differences in PTSD when compared with those without previous child abuse.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130501154442.htm

[Pepin]

I like this research that shows genetic changes simply because it is more grounded and not really abstract. People seem to have a disposition against psychological arguments, likely because of what they imply, and they would seem to prefer more of biological explanation. I am quite like that myself, but I realize that there are far too many issues with such an aproach, the main being that it is a mechanism to distant myself from the personal.

[gnome]

Yes it seems a consensus was reached stating that, every single person, meaning all genes, carry embedded within them, the potential to manifest "mental illness" (typically Personality Disorders), however what determines these genes active is always Environment, and its many facets.

Therefore mental disorders are passed down through the generations, and then morph to suit whatever environmental factors it encounters. If this is correct it would mean with good parenting, like Stef advocates, which is no easy task, dysfunctional families and mental disorders can be corrected with one generation. 

I think this theory probably holds some weight, clearly genes are affected by environment, and we as human beings can latch onto that, safely knowing, that if we change the environment for the better, the organism benefits. 

 

[STer]

 

Yes it seems a consensus was reached stating that, every single person, meaning all genes, carry embedded within them, the potential to manifest "mental illness" (typically Personality Disorders), however what determines these genes active is always Environment, and its many facets.

Therefore mental disorders are passed down through the generations, and then morph to suit whatever environmental factors it encounters. If this is correct it would mean with good parenting, like Stef advocates, which is no easy task, dysfunctional families and mental disorders can be corrected with one generation. 

I think this theory probably holds some weight, clearly genes are affected by environment, and we as human beings can latch onto that, safely knowing, that if we change the environment for the better, the organism benefits

 

 

Different cases have different levels of influence of genes vs. environment. So I don't think it's safe to say that an improved environment will override all genetic tendencies toward dysfunction. Some genetic tendencies may be stronger than others, even with a healthy environment. But a healthy environment could help reduce many cases it would seem and perhaps make the ones that still persist more manageable.

[Pepin]

But a healthy environment could help reduce many cases it would seem and perhaps make the ones that still persist more manageable.

Would make sense to say that those thathave unhealthy genetic tendencies would benifit the more from peaceful parenting that those who do not have such genetic tendencies? I feel as though that less peaceful parenting would have little effect on a human with a healthy genetic disposition, but that it would have a rather drastic effect on one with an unhealthy genetic disposition.

[STer]

 

But a healthy environment could help reduce many cases it would seem and perhaps make the ones that still persist more manageable.

Would make sense to say that those that have unhealthy genetic tendencies would benifit the more from peaceful parenting that those who do not have such genetic tendencies? I feel as though that less peaceful parenting would have little effect on a human with a healthy genetic disposition, but that it would have a rather drastic effect on one with an unhealthy genetic disposition.

 

I guess that depends on the goal. A person with healthy genetics who also has great parenting might also benefit greatly and become extraordinary. And such a person might then go on to influence many others. So I think the benefit could be important in any case.

Also, the parenting influence could be even greater if, beyond just generic peaceful parenting, we were able to identify particular biological issues so that parents could give specific care to compensate for any challenges to which a particular kid is predisposed. I often use the analogy of diabetes. It's not enough to just do peaceful parenting with a diabetic child. You need to understand their special dietary needs. A kid with a biological predisposition for reduced empathy or poor impulse control, for instance, might need a special type of nurturing above and beyond what some other children might need.

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

 

I guess that depends on the goal. A person with healthy genetics who also has great parenting might also benefit greatly and become extraordinary. And such a person might then go on to influence many others. So I think the benefit could be important in any case.

 

Please define "extraordinary".  I believe "extraordinary" in a developmental context would simply mean having the capacity to relate empathically to other's feelings and needs as well as understand the connection between one's own feelings and needs very easily; such as how Marshall Rosenberg describes in his nonviolent communication seminars.

If this is the case, it is very easy to see how one may believe that the correct environmental conditions could create a perfectly mentally healthy individual regardless of genetic predisposition.  By that same logic, you can also make the case that, for a person that is genetically fortunate, less than perfect environmental conditions could yield a perfectly mentally healthy individual as well.  Thus, the value of genetics is still preserved while also conceding the inordinately high value of environment.

 

 

Also, the parenting influence could be even greater if, beyond just generic peaceful parenting, we were able to identify particular biological issues so that parents could give specific care to compensate for any challenges to which a particular kid is predisposed. I often use the analogy of diabetes. It's not enough to just do peaceful parenting with a diabetic child. You need to understand their special dietary needs. A kid with a biological predisposition for reduced empathy or poor impulse control, for instance, might need a special type of nurturing above and beyond what some other children might need.

 

I would also like you to define "specific care".  If a parent sufficiently practicing peaceful parenting, there is no "specific care".  This would have no meaning under my definition of "peaceful parenting".  In your example, you explain that peaceful parenting is not enough if the child is diabetic.  The parent would also need to adress the dietary needs that are unique to people who suffer from diabetes.  My question is, if a parent is aware of a child's diabetic needs, why is that not encompassed by your definition of peaceful parenting?  If a child has unique needs that a parent is aware of, and the parent willfully neglects those needs, how is that peaceful parenting?  I guess the broader misconception is I also don't understand your definition of "generic peaceful parenting".

[STer]

Yes much of what you say in your first response is what I'm talking about. We might put it in terms of having an extremely high emotional quotient. I didn't say the correct environmental conditions could create that regardless of genetic predisposition though. That's obviously far from true. There are many genetic conditions that would significantly limit someone's capacities in those areas.Perhaps it is the case that with the right genetic mix - that doesn't mean some overall perfect genetic mix, since there is no such thing, but rather one well suited to the particular environment - a given person could manage to come out relatively healthy despite a very challenging external upbringing.I'm not sure what point you're getting at though. Anyone with any credibility at all agrees that both genetics and environment play interconnected roles to varying degrees in various cases. That's certainly my view.By "specific care" I mean measures that a particular child, due to having a certain condition, requires for optimal health that most other children do not require. Yes if a parent is aware of a child's diabetic needs and fails to meet them, then some might say that violates "peaceful parenting." It's really unhelpful to get on a tangent about the definition of "peaceful parenting." The point is if they knew about the diabetic needs and failed to take care of them, that would be considered neglectful. But what if they don't know about the diabetes or the special needs that it brings? That's the situation we are likely facing with other biological issues right now that we are not yet able to identify well. My point was that as we improve our ability to accurately diagnose more biological conditions, parents will have the ability to provide the appropriate unique care for those children who have them and who, at the moment, are not getting that care.