<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A brief reheating of the refrigerator mother</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mindhacks.com/2012/10/28/a-brief-reheating-of-the-refrigerator-mother/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mindhacks.com/2012/10/28/a-brief-reheating-of-the-refrigerator-mother/</link>
	<description>Neuroscience and psychology news and views.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 06:21:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: logicalincrementalism</title>
		<link>http://mindhacks.com/2012/10/28/a-brief-reheating-of-the-refrigerator-mother/#comment-40414</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[logicalincrementalism]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 04:12:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mindhacks.com/?p=24776#comment-40414</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@ Maia Szalavitz
If there is &#039;no way&#039; to disentangle neglect and malnutrition (or hormone deficiencies or genetic variation) then what conclusions can we draw about the brain anomalies associated with neglect?  What grounds are there for assuming they are due to emotional neglect or sensory deprivation, as Perry does?  What you seem to be saying is that Perry&#039;s hypothesis is untestable.  

I&#039;ve looked at his paper in more detail here;http://movingonfrombowlby.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/bruce-perry-on-nature-and-nurture/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Maia Szalavitz<br />
If there is &#8216;no way&#8217; to disentangle neglect and malnutrition (or hormone deficiencies or genetic variation) then what conclusions can we draw about the brain anomalies associated with neglect?  What grounds are there for assuming they are due to emotional neglect or sensory deprivation, as Perry does?  What you seem to be saying is that Perry&#8217;s hypothesis is untestable.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve looked at his paper in more detail here;<a href="http://movingonfrombowlby.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/bruce-perry-on-nature-and-nurture/" rel="nofollow">http://movingonfrombowlby.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/bruce-perry-on-nature-and-nurture/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maia Szalavitz</title>
		<link>http://mindhacks.com/2012/10/28/a-brief-reheating-of-the-refrigerator-mother/#comment-39808</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Maia Szalavitz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Nov 2012 16:27:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mindhacks.com/?p=24776#comment-39808</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Disclosure:  Bruce Perry is one of my co-authors.  The problem here is that it&#039;s hard to severely emotionally neglect a child *and* feed him well.  There are 2 reasons for this.  One is that if you are severely neglecting the child, by definition, you are ignoring pleas for help or spending much time feeding him.  

The second reason is more interesting and has to do with a well-documented condition called &quot;failure to thrive.&quot;  This is seen in neglected infants and is linked with a reduction in the release of growth hormone.  It is probably related to what happens to the &quot;runt&quot; in animals that have litters (where reductions in this hormone are also seen).  Basically, it doesn&#039;t get enough licking, nuzzling, etc. and that actually turns down growth hormone.  The result of this is that even if nutrients are available, the animal doesn&#039;t use them well and basically slowly dies.  We literally need physical affection to get signals for survival.

So there will be no way to disentangle neglect and malnutrition because you can&#039;t have severe neglect without malnutrition.  Whether some of the brain results are due to the malnutrition doesn&#039;t matter because the fundamental cause of the problem is the neglect.

If you have a copy of The Boy Who Was Raised as A Dog, we discuss neglect at length in context of failure to thrive]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Disclosure:  Bruce Perry is one of my co-authors.  The problem here is that it&#8217;s hard to severely emotionally neglect a child *and* feed him well.  There are 2 reasons for this.  One is that if you are severely neglecting the child, by definition, you are ignoring pleas for help or spending much time feeding him.  </p>
<p>The second reason is more interesting and has to do with a well-documented condition called &#8220;failure to thrive.&#8221;  This is seen in neglected infants and is linked with a reduction in the release of growth hormone.  It is probably related to what happens to the &#8220;runt&#8221; in animals that have litters (where reductions in this hormone are also seen).  Basically, it doesn&#8217;t get enough licking, nuzzling, etc. and that actually turns down growth hormone.  The result of this is that even if nutrients are available, the animal doesn&#8217;t use them well and basically slowly dies.  We literally need physical affection to get signals for survival.</p>
<p>So there will be no way to disentangle neglect and malnutrition because you can&#8217;t have severe neglect without malnutrition.  Whether some of the brain results are due to the malnutrition doesn&#8217;t matter because the fundamental cause of the problem is the neglect.</p>
<p>If you have a copy of The Boy Who Was Raised as A Dog, we discuss neglect at length in context of failure to thrive</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stylema</title>
		<link>http://mindhacks.com/2012/10/28/a-brief-reheating-of-the-refrigerator-mother/#comment-39702</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[stylema]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:47:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mindhacks.com/?p=24776#comment-39702</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s great to get your perspective on this. I thought The Telegraph was one to be trusted but I love your &quot;truth&quot;, ie facts backed up my solid evidence.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s great to get your perspective on this. I thought The Telegraph was one to be trusted but I love your &#8220;truth&#8221;, ie facts backed up my solid evidence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
