Talk:Refrigerator mother theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV

"blame should be placed where it belongs: poor parenting." This can't possible be Neutral or did I just misread it somehow?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.123.80 (talk • contribs)


This article is not even about Refrigerator mothers!

It is about what the implication would or would no be on children. Instead of talking about why some mothers are very cold towards their kids. Common sense dictates that they cold be cold towards their children, because their mother was cold. Besides that some sort of trauma induced disaffection because they lose the life they used to have, or whatnot. That is more relevant than myths about induced autism in their kids. In fact why not mention that the mothers might be very autistic and do not intend any harm? If the mothers have autism, the kids may in fact get it hereditary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.85.189 (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Removals

Besides eliminating some pov adjectives, rearranging the external links section and changing the article to American punctuation, I removed this section:

New explanations: filling a theoretical void. After the “refrigerator mother” theory gradually lost credibility within the medical community, autism research has focused primarily on establishing a genetic cause for autistic spectrum disorders. A twin study by Folstein and Rutter in 1977 found much higher concordance for autism in identical twins compared to fraternal twins. [citation needed]

Medical authorities, while continuing to focus on possible genetic vulnerabilities to autism since abandoning the long-held notion of refrigerator mothers, generally attribute the increase of autism diagnoses to changes in diagnostic criteria and a growing awareness of the disorder. [citation needed]

Bernard Rimland was among the first healthcare professionals to articulate the premise that vaccines with mercury-containing preservatives may have been the principle cause of autism, stirring controversy as a result. Critics of more recent environmental trigger theories have suggested widespread concerns about vaccines as the likely environmental triggers are simply hoaxes fostered by lawyers anxious to profit from litigation, and that such theories promote and prey upon feelings of guilt among parents, much as the refrigerator mother theory fostered guilt among mothers decades ago. [1]

and also this one:

Controversy over causes of autism continues.

Not satisfied with explanations offered by medical authorities, a number of parent-led advocacy groups have sprung up seeking better explanations for the causes of autism. Some are loosely allied with the medical establishment, including the National Alliance for Autism Research and the M.I.N.D. Institute. Some advocacy groups, including Safe Minds, Generation Rescue and the Autism Research Institute (founded by Rimland), have stirred controversy by openly questioning the conclusions of medical authorities, calling for more extensive research examining possible environmental triggers, particularly vaccines and mercury exposure.

In response to demands for research into possible environmental causes from parents and these controversial advocacy groups, it has been suggested vaccine theories simply promote and prey upon feelings of guilt among parents, much as the discredited refrigerator mother theory fostered guilt among mothers decades ago. [2]

Reason: there are many autism and autism-related articles in WP that already cover those theories ad infinitum and ad nauseam. This article is about a psychogenic theory of autism. Full explanation of somatogenic theories here runs against WP guidelines. ―Cesar Tort 21:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

With that in mind, the citation to Jay Joseph should be removed. Joseph's quotation criticizes the genetic theory of autism and has nothing to do with refrigerator mothers per se. I removed that quotation earlier today but you put it back in; would you care to explain why? Eubulides 19:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Because you didn’t explain your reasons. After hearing them, ok: you may remove it if you wish. But I’d prefer it stay since, when Joseph refutes the "if it runs in families it must be genetic" fallacy in biopsychiatry, he is talking about environmental stressors as the trauma counterhypothesis of the medical model. —Cesar Tort 19:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I'll remove it. Joseph's book is indeed talking about environmental stressors, but he doesn't advocate the refrigerator mother theory at all; he's talking about biological factors like prenatal and postnatal exposure to mercury. Joseph's book is pretty much irrelevant to this page. Eubulides 19:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. I already relocated the removed quotation to the right article. I hope it's not removed there. —Cesar Tort 19:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ellipses

The current article contains markup that looks like this:

infants [...]. There

or like this (with an ellipsis, not with 3 adjacent periods):

referred to […]. In

or like this:

mothers. […] The

The standard wikipedia style for ellipses when omitting words in a quote is this:

end of old sentence.… Start of new sentence

How about if we change to the standard style?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eubulides (talk • contribs)

Yes, sure: go ahead. —Cesar Tort 19:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

tenuous?

An editor has removed—:

—from "See also" section saying that the relationship is tenuous. I don't agree but won't revert. I leave to others the discussion of this issue. —Cesar Tort 18:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit offensive?

I am a relative of an Autistic person, and this page is ridiculous.

How can someone be so offensive and put so many bad things about Autistic people? We should delete this page and have someone who actually knows about Autism and what it's like to raise and live with an Autistic child.

Tangmeisterjr (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that we should not report about the controversy at all? Or just that one of the sides is so "bad" or "offensive" that we should exclude that side and only describe the other side? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

curious how you're 'reporting' only some of the information. Kanner changed his mind on this theory before the end of the 1970s. how much accuracy can you claim if you leave out information such as this out of the article? (source: https://iacc.hhs.gov/non-iacc-events/2011/092611/ethics_findings_autism_risk_092611.pdf ) MasterFugu (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's have some science

It seems that this is a controversial topic, so let's try to separate the science from the politics.

The science part should be about (1) observations, hunches, impressions, etc. and (2) formulation of theories that, in the view of the theory formulators and/or supporters, account for these things; followed by (3) tests of the theory: attempts to discover patterns or find supporting evidence, along with failures to do so (or assertions that no such patterns or evidence exist).

The politics part could be about votes or other decisions to dismiss or abandon or downplay the theory.

I daresay the difference between science and politics, when it comes to a psychological or sociological theory, is that science only talks about the relationship between theory and evidence, while politics addresses how people feel about being labeled or blamed.

A scientific statement would be, "Sixty percent of the children diagnosed as autistic in this study had mothers whom the researcher identified as emotionally cold, while only thirty percent of the control group had such mothers." A political statement would be something like, "It is demeaning to mothers to label them cold as a refrigerator". --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem that I have with the theory is that apparently still some people (and worse, established psychologists) believe this rubbish. Yes, that's a very un-scientific statement, but my son has high-functioning autism and I can tell you for sure that he's never been abused. What I did find out, though, is that there's a high incidence of autism in the family. So if the mother (or father for that matter) may appear cold or aloof, a much simpler explanation is that one of them, or both, are on the autistic spectrum. I mean, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out, although my experience is that people would rather find an external factor that blame their own genes. Examples are the now debunked fallacious theory that inoculations would be to blame, or certain kinds of foods. Yet we see article space devoted to this, and in a sense credibility, just because it has to be NPOV and every viewpoint should be represented. I understand the rationale, but it still feels wrong. SeverityOne (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing

Missing from the discussion is a chemical basis for "Refrigerator Mother," as in; preempted, disrupted or displacement of oxytocin during the birth process in premature birth, Cesarean Section, or induction of labor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.163.171 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 January 2013‎ (Moved from the article onto the talk page by Lova Falk talk 08:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC))

Hi 68.40.163.171 and welcome to Wikipedia! Do you have good and reliable sources? In that case, please be bold and add this kind of information to the article. Please also check WP:Referencing for beginners. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Genetic Circularity

It's prob. nothing that politicized scientists will ever look at it, but it's entirely possible, the more we learn about genetics, that poor quality environment leads to a different genetic expression. We acknowledge that environmental toxins can cause genetic damage, there's no reason to think that "refrigerator mother" behaviour is any different. Further, the above writer talking about a high family incidence of autism doesn't really deal with the issue that the basic genetic deformity may be caused by environmental factors, and then this genetic deformity is passed down, in a vicious cycle, becoming worse and worse, because if the P1 generation is cold and distant, it raises P2 to be cold and distant, which raises P3 to be even more cold and distant, and then you have a Grandmother, Mother and Child, all of whom are genetically warped due to P1's cold/distant behaviour. P1, for example, could have been subject to other trauma that caused the withdrawal and lack of warmth. This causes P2 to pattern such behaviour, and to treat her own children in such manner. P3, then, has two maternal influences who display abberant behaviour---but with no possibility of diagnostic intervention, given today's political situation.

Consider that P2 cannot maintain a relationship with her partner; thus, she is the sole factor in determining whether the child gets treatment. Do you think that a cold woman with marginal social skills is going to consent to taking her child to a psychiatrist who focuses on her, not on her "broken child"? She will likely only consent to treatment that pathologizes the child while painting her as a suffering victim, even tho it is very likely that her social skills are as marginal as the child's, if not moreso. She also lacks neural plasticity compared with a child, so if we have a public health system, it's prob. better to expend the resources on the child, while avoiding any action that might decrease the mother's receptiveness to treatment for her child. But really, pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy for the child can't make up for the lack of maternal warmth, only having a loving community of functional adults around can do that.

So even if there is a genetic correlation, that doesn't explain what causes the deviant genotype---and given that rates of autism are increasing, it must be some sort of environmental toxin. Or, worse, the socially unskilled inbreed with eachother, because they can't maintain relationships with functional people. And keep in mind that being HFA doesn't mean one can't work---HFA can often work at complex tasks that require pedantry or rules-lawyering. It could be that our capitalist society is creating a vicious feedback loop. Where historically people had to develop authentic emotions to survive in community, today they only need to acquire capital. Not that I think there's research supporting any of this being put into the WikiPedia article, but maybe some day some intrepid researcher will put the puzzle together. Genetics is one component to be sure, but environmental toxicity is not to be discounted.

Seeking additional references

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jul/16/entertainment/et-tips16

As I understand it, there's no evidence at all for the "refrigerator mother" theory except for the complexity of Freudian theories themselves. And there's plenty of evidence autism has a biological cure. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Mothers: Tired of Taking the Rap, New York Times Magazine, Janna Malamud Smith (clinical social worker), June 10, 1990.

" . . . Such one-dimensional portrayals are hardly new. Mothers have rarely fared well in psychological literature. . . "

The view that mothers are simplistically blamed for all sorts of problems. And the definition of what constitutes good mothering, or fathering for that matter, tends to change from decade to decade. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

http://www.parents.com/health/autism/history-of-autism/

"Post-World War II, there was a lot of psychoanalytic work done on autism where researchers looked solely at the impact of life experiences," explains Parents advisor Fred Volkmar, M.D., director of the Child Study Center at Yale University School of Medicine and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders. "They didn't consider the role of biology or genetics, which we now understand to be the main cause."

1977: Research on twins finds that autism is largely caused by genetics and biological differences in brain development.

United States CDC, Facts About ASD [for interested nonspecialist], Page last updated: March 28, 2016. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/facts.html#ref

•Most scientists agree that genes are one of the risk factors that can make a person more likely to develop ASD.[4]

[4] 4.Huquet G, Ey E, Bourgeron T. The genetic landscapes of autism spectrum disorders. Annu Re Genomics Hum Genet. 2013; 14: 191-213.

Many reports that Bettelheim was abusive to students, yes, he was a hypocrite, but not directly relevant to theory

The book was immensely popular and he became a leading public figure on autism until his suicide in 1990. He became controversial after his death when it was learned that he had fabricated his credentials, and as former students at the Orthogenic School claimed he abused them.[1] Bettelheim wrote and spoke against corporal punishment, but frequently hit students at the school. Some counselors at the Orthogenic School saw Bettelheim merely as using corporal punishment, although many but not all residential students seeing rage and out-of-control violence on Bettelheim's part.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Pollak's biography states that two separate women reported that Bettelheim fondled their breasts and those of other female students at the school while he was ostensibly apologizing for beating her.[9][10]

Richard Pollak, the brother of a former patient, wrote a biography in 1997 and interviewed some ex-patients who characterized him as a cruel tyrant.[11]

Now, I do struggle with whether or not to include this information. Someone else might argue, the fact that the man's a hypocrite, especially that he's a combination hypocrite and fraud, is directly relevant. And I think you have a point. Just for the time being, it just feels like the right decision to not include the bulk of the information here in this article (this information is already included on the Bettelheim page). I acknowledge that I may be mistaken about this. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Pollak, Richard (1997). The Creation of Dr. B: A Biography of Bruno Bettelheim. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-684-80938-0.
  2. ^ Chicago Reader, Letters to the Editor, Brutal Bettelheim, Name Withheld, April 5, 1990. And Chicago Reader, Letters to the Editor, The Monster of the Midway, Alida Jatich, April 4, 1991. The author is a former resident of the 'Orthogenic School' from 1966-1972. In her second letter, she acknowledged authorship of the first.
  3. ^ The Other Dr. Bettelheim, Washington Post, Charles Pekow, Editorial, Aug. 26, 1990. " . . he created a climate of fear -- we could never tell when he would attack us for any arbitrary reason. . " See 'The Other Dr. Bettelheim', Letters to the Editor, Sept. 6, 1990, which includes a response by David Zwerdling who had been a counselor for one year during 1969-70; and The Bettelheim We Know (Cont'd.), Letters to the Editor, Oct. 6, 1990, for the contrasting views of some counselors.
  4. ^ Angres, Ronald, personal essay, "Who, Really, Was Bruno Bettelheim?", Commentary, 90, (4), October 1, 1990: 26–30.
  5. ^ Bettelheim Led Us Cruelly Down Wrong Road For Children, Editorial, Chicago Tribune, Joan Beck, Oct. 1, 1990. " . . no independent diagnosis or verification is available. It is likely many youngsters he called autistic were not, by usual definitions. . "
  6. ^ A Personal View Of Bruno Bettelheim, Chicago Tribune, Alida Jatich, Oct. 29, 1990. ' . . Whenever Bettelheim called a young person ``autistic`` or ``psychotic`` or ``homicidal`` or ``suicidal`` or anything else, the staff believed him regardless of all evidence to the contrary. To them, the truth was whatever Bettelheim said it was, and their job was to get me and the other youngsters to accept it. . '
  7. ^ Bernstein, Richard: "Accusations of Abuse Haunt the Legacy of Dr. Bruno Bettelheim", New York Times, November 4, 1990: "The Week in Review" section. " . . not only of a tyrant but of a hypocrite as well. . "
  8. ^ Letter to the Editor, New York Times, 'Bettelheim Became the Very Evil He Loathed,' Roberta Redford, Nov. 20, 1990 (written Nov. 9). " . . I would like to believe that at the beginning his motives were pure. By the time I knew him, he was a megalomaniac, twisted and out of control. We were terrified of him, and lived for those days when he was out of town. . "
  9. ^ The Confidence Man : THE CREATION OF DR. B.: A Biography of Bruno Bettelheim. By Richard Pollak. Simon & Schuster: 478 pages, Los Angeles Times, reviewed by Howard Gardner (professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education), Jan. 19, 1997.
  10. ^ THE BATTLE OVER BETTELHEIM, Weekly Standard, Peter D. Kramer, April 7, 1997.
  11. ^ Finn, Molly (1997). "In the case of Bruno Bettelheim". First Things (74): 44–8.

Terminology

Would the "Refrigerator Mother" theory best be described as "discarded" or "discredited"? I favor the latter, as it seems to say that it is no longer widely accepted due to the large volume of evidence stating that it is untrue, as opposed to the former, which implies that it was just dropped for "some reason" or perhaps arbitrarily. 2600:1004:B16C:789F:60CA:46AC:5978:B90B (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Kanner blurring autism and childhood schizophrenia?

Please see the end of the following intro. This person is saying Kanner believed the two to be distinct, yet included autism in his chapter on childhood schizophrenia. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


Sanua, V.D. (1990). Leo Kanner (1894-1981): The man and the scientist. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 21(1): 3-23. Please see the footnote on page 2.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Refrigerator mother theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Bettelheim's Credentials

I am paring down the discussion of Bruno Bettelheim's credentials on this page. Most of this information is duplicated from Bettelheim's page. It is more relevant to that page than to this one, about a theory which Bettelheim promoted but did not invent, and which his credentials had little impact. Whenelvisdied (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A book by a so-called refrigerator mother

Hi. My mother wrote a book about my brother, who probably had autism. I have an obvious WP:COI issue that prevents me from placing this link on Refrigerator mother theory, but if you are interested, it is right here: Wikiversity:Autism_spectrum/A_few_impertinent_questions --Guy vandegrift (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Refrigerator_mother_theory/Archive_1&oldid=1137119093"