About Adoptee Rage

Statistics Identify large populations of Adoptees in prisons, mental hospitals and committed suicide.
Fifty years of scientific studies on child adoption resulting in psychological harm to the child and
poor outcomes for a child's future.
Medical and psychological attempts to heal the broken bonds of adoption, promote reunions of biological parents and adult children. The other half of attempting to repair a severed Identity is counselling therapy to rebuild the self.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Ambaguity, Ambivalence or Coping Mechanisms?


Ambivalence, Ambiguity or Coping Mechanisms In Adopted Children and Adult Adoptees?


In sociology and social psychology, the term "ambiguity" is used to indicate situations that involve uncertainty, as In the process of child adoption. Many factors are present and intersect at different periods of time that will effect the adoption in many ways.

Is a state of having simultaneous, conflicting reactions towards some object.
Example: The adopted child's personal and private thoughts are kept to himself because his personal truth or how the adopted child's understanding of

#1. The Adopted-Self and the True-Self
 A. The child's(Role as compliant) for the presence adoptive parents.
 B. The child's(Role as deviant) alone,with friends, and parent absence.
 C. The child's (Role as student) with a teacher, a class or activity

#2. Adopted Child's View of Adoptive Parent
 A. The role that tries to please parent (Role:Compliant)
 B.  The similar role to avoid trouble or punishment (Roll:Eggshell)

#3. The Adoptive Parents "behavior toward" the Adopted Child.
 A. How the parents behave in the child's presence.(Role:Parent)
 B. How the parent's behave with other adults. (Role:Deviant)

Ambivalence is the adopted child's inner conflict is what he knows
about A) himself, B) his environment, C) The Adopted Child Role,          D) Adopted Sibling Role, E) Student Role, F) Church Member Role        G) Compliant Role,  H) Deviant Role, J) Adopted Child Social Role        K) His Secret True Self. and the many other roles adoptee's perform with other individuals that may exist close to, overlap and inside of the adoption circle, these people are given the adopted child related roles.

Never will the adopted child role be unveiled to reveal the secret self, as the adoption circle is the circle of persecution, injustice, humiliation, devalue, incriminate, investigate, as the consensus of the adoptive family behavior, prejudice, bias and wish ill health and suffering to the ungrateful adopted child. Those in the adoption circle have tolerated the adopted child's presence and see the adoptee as a one dimensional object that is ignorant, has nothing to contribute, as a lower class and cast, worthy of hatred and malice. The adopted sibling in a narcissistic view has considerable contempt for the adopted child and will waste time gossiping about the adopted child within the adoptive circle. The sibling is a rival to the non-participating adoptee., The adult sibling see's the adult adoptee the same as when they were young children, as a competition for the adoptive parent's attention, although the sibling is the adoptive parent's biological child which shares unconditional love with the parent.

Unlike the adopted child who must constantly prove allegiance to the adoptive parent, exhausting attempts go unrewarded on this one way street and forever cycle of madness in domestic violent narcissist's home.

The adoptive parent has great emotional baggage, loathing and contempt for the adopted child who is the bearer of unfulfillment and failure to meet expectations. The child never earned respect, trust or understanding, the adoptive parent can only feel indifference toward the adopted child who the parent could not trust.

The adopted child's Secret True Self
Is kept locked deep within never to see the light of day, nor any aspects of his true self would ever be revealed to another human being in his lifetime. No other person can develop a complete trusting relationship with the adoptee. The adopted child has been trained from birth to anticipate, wait for and expect that the trauma will arrive. Traumatic experience is something that is familiar, a pattern and can be depended upon by an abused adopted child. Adopted children live in a perpetual developmental arrest, having stopped the psychological progress and mastery during the developmental stages of childhood. Having not mastered each foundation stage of exploration, the stopping point between two phases is the unfortunate place of mental development. The interruption of childhood abuse, neglect and coping with defense mechanisms helped the child survive but not growing psychologically.  
Adoption abuse strips every shred of humanity from the potential that every child is born with. To destroy a child's identity, will make him more compliant, dominated and easily maintained control over him.               "The  Parent Guard"

The Adoptive Parent's perceived control of adopted child's beliefs:
1. In the child's adoption story created by the adoptive parent's bias.
2. Religious beliefs of the adoptive parents including rights, etc.
3. The adoptive parent's moral beliefs, values, society, membership.
4. The adopted parent's culture, ancestry, political movements.
5. The adoptive parent's "Do what I say, Not as I Do" behavior.

#1. What the adoptive parents expected the adopted child to believe. #2. What the adoptive family expects the adopted child to believe. #3. The adopted child's compliant belief. #4. The child's secret personal truth (held inside and told to no one) that no one expects the existence of.

Stated another way, ambivalence is the experience of having

an attitude towards someone or something that contains both positively and negatively valenced components. The term also refers to situations where "mixed feelings" of a more general sort are experienced, or where a person experiences uncertainty or indecisiveness concerning something. The expression "sitting on the fence" is often used to describe the feeling of ambivalence. Example:"Our family believes in animal rights", So eat your steak!
Ambivalence is experienced as psychologically unpleasant when the positive and negative aspects of a subject are both present in a person's mind at the same time. This state can lead to avoidance or procrastination or to deliberate attempts to resolve the ambivalence. When the situation requires a decision to be made, people experience the greatest discomfort from their ambivalence ambivalent. Example: "If I eat the steak, I am ignoring animal rights"

Types of attitudinal ambivalence

The psychological literature has distinguished between several different forms of ambivalence. One, often called subjective ambivalence or felt ambivalence, represents the psychological experience of conflict, mixed feelings, and indecision in the evaluation of some object. Subjective ambivalence is generally assessed using direct self-report measures asking people to report on these experiences (e.g., conflict) about the topic. Another type of ambivalence is often called objective ambivalence or potential ambivalence, and it represents the simultaneous acknowledgement of both positive and negative evaluations. Objective ambivalence is generally assessed using a method first developed by Kaplan, in which a standard bipolar attitude scale (e.g., extremely negative to extremely positive) is split into two separate scales, each independently assessing the magnitude of one valence (e.g., not at all negative to extremely negative). If a person endorses both positive and negative reactions towards the same object, then at least some objective ambivalence is present. Kaplan[2] initially operationalized ambivalence as the lesser of the two reactions (i.e., positive or negative evaluations), also called conflicting reactions (and contrasted with dominant reactions).[7]  For example, if objective ambivalence towards exercising was assessed using two separate 6-point scales, and a person indicated that his or her evaluation was slightly negative (e.g., 2 on a 6-point scale) and extremely positive (e.g., 6 on a 6-point scale), this person's ambivalence would be quantified by the lesser of these two evaluations (i.e., a 2 in this example).  
Much research has argued that the effects of ambivalence are often driven by subjective ambivalence, and people's motivation to reduce it. Because of this, researchers have sought to understand the antecedents of subjective ambivalence. Some of this research has examined the relationship between objective ambivalence and subjective ambivalence, often by seeking optimal ways of combining dominant and conflicting evaluations that best predict subjective ambivalence. For example, Thompson and colleagues argue that people with positive and negative evaluations which are of similar magnitude (e.g., +4 & -3) should experience more ambivalence than people whose evaluations are of dissimilar magnitude (e.g., +4 and -1). Similarly, they argue that even with relatively similar positive and negative evaluations, people whose evaluations are more extreme (e.g., +6 and -5) should experience more ambivalence than people whose evaluations are less extreme (e.g., +2 and -1). The formula they recommend, often called the "Griffin" formula or the similarity-intensity model, is Ambivalence = (P + N) / 2 - |P-N|, where P and N are the magnitude of positive and negative reactions, respectively. Other research has found that the relative contribution of the dominant reactions decreases as the magnitude of conflicting reactions increases. Additional research has found that objective ambivalence predicts subjective ambivalence to a greater extent when both the positive and negative reactions are accessible or when a decision about the attitude object is imminent. Still other research has found that objective ambivalence is not the only thing which produces subjective ambivalence. For example, interpersonal ambivalence - the presence of attitudes which are in conflict with those of important others, independently predicts subjective ambivalence as does the mere anticipation of information which may conflict with one's preexisting attitude.

Effects of attitudinal ambivalence

Ambivalence is often conceptualized as a negative predictor of attitude strength.That is, as an attitude becomes more ambivalent, its strength decreases. Strong attitudes are those that are stable over time, resistant to change, and predict behavior and information processing.Studies have found that ambivalent attitudes are less stable over time and less resistant to change and less predictive of behavior.
In addition, because ambivalence is conceptualized as psychologically uncomfortable, people appear motivated to reduce their ambivalence. Notably, people appear to pay more attention to information relevant to ambivalent attitudes, and particularly if this information is perceived as having the potential to reduce ambivalence.

Bleuler's tripartite scheme

The concept of ambivalence was introduced into psychiatric parlance by  Eugene Bleuler in 1910-11. Bleuler distinguished three main types of ambivalence: volitional, intellectual, and emotional. Volitional ambivalence refers to an inability to decide on an action – what Montaigne called “a spirit justly balanced betweene two equal desires”. The concept (if not Bleuler's term) had a long prehistory, reaching back through Buridan's starving between two equally attractive bales of hay in the Middle Ages, to Aristotle Intellectual ambivalence – the sceptical belief that “There is no reason but hath a contrary to it” - also follows a long tradition reaching back through Montaigne to Sextus Empiricus and Pyrrho (Freud considered Bleuler's stress on intellectual ambivalence particularly appropriate given his own ambivalence towards Freud's intellectual constructs, alternatively praising and criticizing them). Emotional ambivalence involved opposing affective attitudes towards the same object, as with the man who both loved and hated his wife.
While mainly dealing with ambivalence in relation to the psychological splitting of schizophrenia, Bleuler also noted how “in the dreams of healthy persons, affective as well as intellectual ambivalence is a common phenomenon”.

Freudian usage

Freud was swift to pickup Bleuler's concept of ambivalence, applying it to areas he had previously dealt with in terms of ambiguous language or the persistent co-existence of love and hatred aimed at the same person. Freud also extended the scope of Bleuler's term to cover the co-existence of active and passive trends in the same instinctual impulse  what Freud called "pairs of contrary component instincts" such as looking and being looked at.
 Karl Abraham explored the presence of ambivalence in mourning – something he thought to be a universal phenomenon. Others in psychoanalysis have traced the roots of contradictory impulses (usually love and hate) to very early stages of psychosexual development.
Defences against feeling both of the two contradictory emotions include psychological repression, isolation and displacement. Thus, for example, an analysand's love for his father might be quite consciously experienced and openly expressed – while his "hate" for the same object might be heavily repressed and only indirectly expressed, and thus only revealed in analysis. A drug addict may feel ambivalently about their drug of choice; they know that the drug has a destructive effect on their lives (socially, financially, medically, and otherwise), while simultaneously seeking and using it because of the pleasure they get from the drug's usage.
Another relevant distinction is that whereas the psychoanalytic notion of "ambivalence" sees it as engendered by all neurotic conflict, a person's everyday "mixed feelings" may easily be based on a quite realistic assessment of the imperfect nature of the thing being considered.