Blank Slate Debunked

I have written about this before but this morning I read a comment in my all things adoption group about it – “The blank slate theory is I think one of the most degrading things to subject a person to.” I agree.

A piece by the American Psychological Association titled LINK>Not-so blank slates notes that infants understand more than you might think. Scientists who explore what’s going on in those adorably tiny heads, find that babies have a surprisingly rich understanding of the social worlds around them. In the 1980s, Renee Baillargeon PhD, director of the Infant Cognition Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and colleagues developed a method to test what babies understood about objects and events in the environment around them. The technique is based on their finding that babies look measurably longer at events that defy their expectations.

Helpfulness, fairness and kindness are “prosocial behaviors” that research indicates may be detectable in babies just a few months old. In one study, 3-month-old infants were shown a googly-eyed circle puppet trudging up a hill. In one scenario, a helpful triangle helped push the circle upward. In another, a not-so-nice square knocked the circle back to the bottom of the hill. Later, an experimenter showed both characters to the babies. The infants preferred to gaze at the helpers over the hinderers. By 5 months old, after they’ve mastered more motor skills, babies actively reach toward the nice character over the mean one — suggesting that the 3-month-olds’ extended gaze was an indication of their preference. The findings suggest that babies can distinguish between good guys and bad guys before they can even roll over.

In one study, babies stared longer at cookies divvied up unequally between two animated giraffe puppets than cookies handed out in even rations. That is, the babies seemed to expect equality and were surprised if one puppet got shortchanged. Research indicates that recognizing fairness emerges between 9 months and 12 months of age. An early sense of fairness may have evolved to help humans work together to survive. Collaborative work is the cradle of equality. Babies understand the concept of “us” versus “them” from an early age. It seems to be fundamentally about a shared preference: You value aspects of the world the same way I do, so I like you.

As scientists continue to study infants’ social and moral development, one big question remains unanswered: Are social-moral principles learned, or are babies born with these systems already in place? So, the old nature vs nurture question has not yet been entirely proved or disproved. Steven Pinker wrote a book – LINK>The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Pinker has argued against a belief that the mind is essentially silly putty, and that commonalities and differences in how people think can be traced to commonalities and differences in their environments.

In The Blank Slate, Pinker endeavors to tell us why that belief is destructive and dangerous. Biological determinism is considered by many as heresy. Any suggestion that genetic factors play a role in shaping patterns of human behavior, including the scientists who study the heritability of traits like intelligence and aggressiveness, or who advance evolutionary explanations for some aspects of cognition, are commonly denounced as racist (or fascist or sexist), picketed, harassed, and sometimes assaulted by protesters.

Pinker believes that the Blank Slate belief has had socially and morally disastrous consequences, and he devotes the considerable force of his talent to demolishing it. Discoveries in neuroscience have shown that the mind comes equipped with various specialized functions, including those responsible for learning languages, estimating numerical quantities, picking out objects in the world, and attributing thoughts and intentions to other human beings. Some of these systems, moreover, vary from person to person in ways that are influenced by the genes. Behavioral geneticists have shown that about half of the variability in a trait like IQ is biological in origin, confirming the long-held suspicion that—all other things being equal—smart people tend to have smart children.

This is not to say that environmental factors play no role in determining how an individual mind works: for example: Japanese babies do not learn Japanese, if their parents speak English. However, if the “slate” were actually blank, nobody would learn any language, or possibly anything at all. One of our deepest anxieties about studying human nature: is the fear that free will may turn out to be only an illusion. Pinker believes the fear actually is existential – that our lives have no meaning or purpose; that all men are not really equal; that our nature is deeply and permanently flawed.

He establishes that our political ideals are safe: the fact that human beings are not literally equal does not justify discrimination; it does, however, force us to think about the tradeoff between freedom and material equality, and about how to ensure that the talented are not punished while the less fortunate are not cast down. Even if biology influences our behavior, every decision we make is the product of fine-tuned cognitive and emotional mechanisms designed to weigh temptation against the possibility of punishment. Pinker believes that morality must be based on a fundamental regard for the interests of each and every human being; and that we ought to punish cheaters who harm or exploit others for their own advantage. Pinker uses everything he can think of to make the case for an inborn and largely immutable human nature.

The science of human nature can inform us about the trade-offs involved in making decisions about what kind of society we want to live in. Whether or not we should take children away from the parents who conceived and gave birth to them is one that we really need to be analyzing based upon the experiences and voices of adult adoptees.

Required By Law

A woman writes –

I keep thinking things can’t get worse and trying to be strong but right now I feel hopeless and it seems impossible. I was working for the school system but they wouldn’t make accommodations for me (example: needing bathroom breaks or a lunch break to eat, etc) and my contract will not be renewed for the upcoming school year because I fought them on not allowing me a pumping accommodation (although required by law) in the future. I’m applying and interviewing but so far everyone only seems to focus on me being pregnant and maternity leave and turning me down. I’m finding this disheartening because I’m being responsible and being proactive yet that doesn’t seem to matter or be helpful. Really having doubts today about my future or my son’s future. I’m trying to imagine that once he is here, everything will be different but I can’t today.

I remember being “let go” from Sears Roebuck & Co back in 1973 when I worked in the Infants department. I was pregnant and there were no “protections” for such a state of being back then. What a difference the passage of time makes.

A LINK>Freeman Mathis & Gary blog at the law firm’s website notes – Two new federal laws aimed at increasing protections for pregnant and breastfeeding employees will go into effect in 2023: the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”) and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (“PUMP For Nursing Mothers Act”). Employers should familiarize themselves with the new employee protections and employer obligations under both laws.

While the law should help the woman I quoted, I also know that in the “real” world that is NOT always enough. The PWFA appears to substantially increase protections for employees and job applicants with known limitations relating to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. It applies to employers with 15 or more employees. It is NOT in effect yet but kicks in on June 27, 2023.

The PWFA entitles covered employees to a reasonable accommodation unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operations of the employer. As with other disabled employees, the employer must engage in the interactive process with the employee in order to discuss and determine the reasonable accommodation. The obligation to engage in the interactive process is triggered when the employer becomes aware of an employee’s “known limitation” arising out of a pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition.

Already in effect as of December 29 2022, the PUMP For Nursing Mothers Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) to entitle all employees (not just non-exempt employees) to unpaid reasonable break time to express breast milk up to one year after the employee’s child’s birth. The Act requires that breaks be provided “each time such employee has need to express the milk.”

The Act also requires employers to provide a private location to express milk that is not a bathroom. Employers should be aware that an employee must be compensated for pumping breaks if such a break must be paid according to other federal, state or local laws; the employee is not completely relieved of duties during the entirety of the break; or if they express breast milk during an otherwise paid break period. The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act contains a small employer exception for employers with fewer than 50 employees where compliance would cause an undue hardship.

The Right To Grieve

I am running short on time today (what’s new ?). This adoptee’s story (not my own) makes some important points today and so, I share.

I was adopted at birth and found out around age 5/6. My ”aunt” and my “cousins” were really my biological mom and siblings. I was the middle child. I found out at a very young age about my biological dad. We had contact a few times, without my adoptive parents unaware because they always discouraged me. When they found out, they made me block him in every sort of possible contact ever. Monitored my phone and e-mail constantly.

I found out a few years later that he passed away in a motorcycle accident.

Anyways, I have a lot of resentment towards my adoptive parents ~~ because that was taken away from me and I never get to have that now. I have a hard time processing whether I have the right to grieve a person I barely knew – but that was my dad.

It just feels messed up.

I feel like there’s this hole in me that will never be filled because it can’t.

We had a DNA test done and I’m definitely his. Which I sometimes selfishly feel like I wish that was wrong and someone else was my biological dad so I could have that chance – but it is what it is.

So much of my life, I feel like, has just been taken away from me. It feels unfair.

What Would The Answer Be ?

Why is it, when adoption comes up, that there are a majority of adoptive parents who will say “Well, what was I supposed to do…just accept that I couldn’t have a baby?” What do you want an adoptee’s answer to you to be ? Just take someone else’s kid ? I get that people want children, but is it another person’s job to supply a child for you ?

Life is not fair. If you didn’t complete your degree, do you say – what am I supposed to do ? Would other people tell you to just go and take someone else’s degree off the wall ? Why isn’t it your job, to give all of the money you have, to the people who are poor ? Or leave your current job, so someone who is unemployed can have it instead ? Would you take your dream home and give it someone who is homeless to live in ? How about that fancy car ? Should you hand the keys over to someone without one ?

Sometimes, life requires us to accept something that is true but that we sincerely don’t want to be part of our reality. Certainly, modern medical science does have some solutions that allow previously infertile women to conceive a child using assisted reproductive techniques. Not only is adoption in the process of being reconsidered and reformed but the medical approaches are as well. Not only are adoptee searches all the rage these days – and many of those searches have successful outcomes with the photos from these reunions making my own heart happy when I see them – but people who were conceived using donor sperm or donor eggs (or both) are discovering that the anonymity that was once standard, leaves them with the same black hole of genetic identity and lost familial medical history that adoptees in closed adoptions have been contending with since the beginning of adoption, which adoptees started pushing back against as early as the 1990s. Now donor conceived persons are pushing back against similar issues.

What sometimes gets lost in these conversations is that people are not inanimate objects like a university degree, employment, a person’s acquired wealth (whether by inheritance or hard work) or the home they bought to live in, the car that transports them wherever they want to go. Actually considering the reality that a child is not a commodity. In their desperate attempt to acquire a child to fill their own unfilled need, the humanity of that child and their birth mother is sometimes lost. That reality that these are human beings with feelings and emotions needs to be carefully reconsidered. You won’t die if you never have a child but you could utterly ruin two other lives in the process of taking someone else’s child – the birth mother’s and the adoptee’s lives – for the remainder of their personal lifetimes. Yes, reunions do relieve some of that long-held sorrow but you cannot recover or make up for the time or relationship development that was lost in the interim.

Morally and Ethically Wrong

An adoptive parent disclosed that she receives $4,000 per month in adoption subsidies for 3 children. These children do not have any physical or intellectual disabilities. They do not have any known medical conditions.

The fact is that states can pay not only foster parents but adoptive parents as much as $4,000 per month for 3 children. Homeless parents are often working one or more jobs and still can’t find affordable, income-based housing. How is this fair ?

Often adoptive parents are the first ones to say that the natural parents need to be able to provide for their kids “on their own”.

How can people not see why and how this is problematic and how morally and ethically wrong this is. Some even justify this as a fair situation. Something is terribly wrong in our society that we do not give full support to struggling families but instead take their children away from them and pay complete strangers to care for them.

I didn’t even know adoption subsidies were a thing.

And to be clear, not EVERY adoption qualifies and it varies by state law. Often, there does have to be some kind of ‘special needs’, though that is a broad category that includes sibling groups, children over 6 years, minorities as well as physical or mental disabilities.

Sadly, many of the original parents who surrender children for adoption do so because they believe not having enough money defines them as not being good enough to parent a child.

Here is one story to highlight the unfairness –

There was a couple who adopted a sibling group. This family makes a 6 figure income. The couple was childless for 14 years. All of the adopted children received Medicaid, the family received a substantial subsidy, and all of the children were eligible to attend a public university of their choosing free for 4 years.

The kids never had to do “without” the basics growing up (though they did not have their biological mom which is always a significant loss). All of the children are now adults.

The husband does very very well in his profession. The couple never actually “needed” a dime of assistance nor did they ever have to pay for healthcare for the children. To their credit, the couple did make trusts for the children.

It is just hard to understand why a sibling group is automatically considered “special needs” . Why is this kind of financial support not “income based”, like every natural parent would be faced with ?

And this is basically political. Universal health care, living wage, other so-called “socialist” policies would address all these issues struggling families face. Hard core capitalist each have their own version of America. No one would ever need to remove children from parents simply for poverty. Not doing this creates an insanely expensive, ineffective child welfare system, and a lot of suffering. And again, this is a voting issue.

From Foster To Adopt

So you are a foster parent but you really hope to adopt ? You say you support family reunification but you are actually hoping it doesn’t happen for your own charges ?

You can not have the main goal be reunification AND have the main goal be adoption.
You cannot foster and be willing to adopt while yet wanting/hoping/planning to adopt/grow your family that way.

I have read that in Florida they have 2 different tracks. You choose to foster with a goal of reunification. Or if you want to adopt, you can still be licensed to foster. The only children placed with you would be those whose parent’s had their rights permanently terminated by the courts. And I also read that is the same process in Oregon.

One described their experience thus – The first time I really thought they were two separate main priorities (reunify, if at all possible for those kids) but in general, I realize that I was personally seeking adoption in my life eventually. It was emotionally brutal for me and that isn’t fair to the kids. Those two goals inevitably conflict with each other and I really struggled with the cognitive and emotional dissonance. I think you should only do that if you’re willing to become the permanent home for kids in your care, but only if all else fails.

It is honestly a very weird paradigm – you want the kids to go home but also want to be the family who adopts them, if they need that.

The key to balancing the two contrasting goals is awareness. A foster parent needs the awareness that they may be facing grief and mourning in the future. There is also the awareness that if they don’t adopt, someone else may. Most importantly, how little it will feel good either way.

Gender Inequality

Somehow, in my own family’s experiences, it seems to me that the financial and real life burdens of parenthood fall mostly on the mothers.

Both of my grandmothers conceived my parents with the help of men 2 decades older than them and yet the burden fell solely upon my grandmothers. Until the marriage I am presently in, for myself and each of my sisters, our ability to parent the children we conceived was directly impacted by our ability to provide for them, therefore, we were robbed of that joy in life.

There continues to be a huge inequality in how women are paid and in the costs they must bear as mothers in regards to their careers and their ability to create enough financial strength to provide for all the basics in life.

No wonder women experience so much dissatisfaction and no wonder many of them do not feel that marriage is a beneficial situation, even if they are also dependent upon the male half of their couple for their financial support. Many times the male half refuses to provide that support or in some way, if the woman has any qualities to offer, will exploit her contribution or wealth for his own comfort and success.

I don’t know how, as a society, we fix this imbalance and make economic support more equal for the majority of people, and especially for the parents of children – but I do know we are not there yet.