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.

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Adult Adoptee Persistent Fear of Adoptive Mother


Adult Adoptee's Living In Persistent Fear of Adoptive Parents

As an adult child of adoptive parents, it is completely normal for you to live in a constant state of fear of the adoptive parent and the punishment based relationship with them where they were dominate and retained complete control over you. The words that you used, the adopted child's thoughts and behaviors...were all "wrong". 

The adoptive mother frequently reminded, reprimanded and punished the adoptive child for having the wrong thoughts that reflected the adopted child's facial expressions, that represented what emotions the adopted child was feeling at any particular time. The spontaneous feelings, emotions and facial expressions from any child are "pure and truthful" reactions. When a child is reacting to injustice at the adoptive mother's selfishness, the adopted child feels hurt, psychological and physical pain, and the facial expression screams "injustice" at the adoptive mother. This monumental honesty and truth from a child is seen by the dominating adoptive mother as "resistance" to her control that she over-reacts to with hostility. She may say "you are treating her disrespectfully" and strikes the child in the face to wipe away the child's facial expression that contributes to her resentment of the adopted child. Slapping one look of a child's face creates a new expression by the child that now reflects "fear of the adoptive mother". The adoptive mother justifies her brutal actions by refusing to feel guilty, instead she prefers to feel "anger toward the adopted child" as she keeps her control over the child.

Why You’re Afraid of Your Narcissistic Parent

You may not think of your narcissistic parent this way, but she’s an abuser. Maybe there was no physical or sexual abuse in your home, but there was plenty of emotional abuse. Research indicates that emotional abuse is as bad, if not worse, than physical and sexual abuse. And you suffered it for 18 years or more.
Examples of emotional abuse include the following:
  • Ignoring: This is when the parent literally ignores the adopted child the child is instantly annihilated and no-longer exists . She doesn’t answer his cries and doesn’t respond. When the adopted child's ADOPTED NAME BEING CALLED by adoptive mother fear is provoked, it is sign, clue or trigger that the adopted child is in trouble, and seriously associated with being harshly punished and humiliated in front of others.
  • Rejecting: The parent literally is rejecting to her adopted child. The adoptive mother will not respond to any of the adopted child’s needs whether he or she be hurt, hungry, injured, etc. The adoptive mother may refuse to touch the adopted child and ridicule him/her while the adopted child is in distress.
  • Isolating: the narcissistic adoptive parent cuts the child off from the outside world. The child is denied contact with friends, family, adults freedom. Adopted child may be confined to bedroom or punishment forced to be with the adoptive mother at all times.
  • Verbally Assaulting: The child undergoes a constant barrage of shaming, ridiculing, belittling, and threats of future punishment for not being what or who the adopted mother wanted. Being not wanted, or the adoptive mother changed her mind and attitude about the adopted child.  Where she is forced to continue care for the adopted child against her current attitude has dramatically changed from the past time when she wanted to adopt a child.
  • Terrorizing: The parent create a fear based environment for the adopted child to live in. The adoptive mother's constant bullying and punishment threats that are outside of a child's bad behavior. The adoptive parent uses set-up-to-fail, is unyielding and has maintained their unrealistic expectations on the child and threaten to harm the child if he or she doesn’t meet the expectations. 
The fear based conditioning from the adoptive mother  lasted 18 years and longer for the adult adoptee that currently lives in fear of their non-existent adoptive mother. The triggers remain ingrained as mental habit loops in the adoptee's brain. The adoptive mother can only see the adult adoptee as the bad adopted child that needs her constant correction to stave off the biological child's natural spontaneous personality and responses. When the adopted daughter became an adolescent, she became a competition to the adoptive mother for attention, sexual competition and competition for control, as the adoptive mother ages and her beauty diminishes, the adopted child's beauty shines and the adoptive mother resents her. The adoptive mother secretly worries that the adopted child's woman body will tempt the adoptive father as they are not biological parent-child but an unattached fit female in the house that represents risk to the adoptive mother's marriage. The adoptive mother fears the adolescent woman (adopted child) will tempt her biological sons with her beauty. She is nothing but an unwelcome sexual temptress occupying space in the adoptive mother's world. 

What brought out the nasty accusations of selfishness was a narcissist’s inability to tolerate outshining all others. In the adopted child's young childhood her innocent sweetness was generous or giving, out came the accusation you were selfish. This emotional abuse occurred so the adopted child wouldn’t look better than the adoptive mother.
The adoptive parents were supposed to love and protect you. They are supposed to gently guide you through childhood and adolescence. Adoptive parents have a duty to support their children and build within them a healthy sense of self. Parents should help their children develop a good sense of self-esteem and rock solid self-confidence. These are the gifts parents have an obligation to give their children.
But rather than giving us the gift of compassionate and loving parenting, our narcissistic adoptive parents gave us psychological scars that no one can see. Instead of independence and individualism the adoptive mother burdens the adopted child with:
  • Self-doubt
  • A lack of confidence
  • The inability to know what we want
  • An inability to express our needs
  • A belief that expressing our needs will lead to rejection/punishment
  • An enduring sense of guilt about everything we do
  • Feeling bad about ourselves
  • An inability to assert ourselves
  • An inability to see our own value
  • A habit of accepting what we don’t want
  • Being trained to blindly follow others demands
  • A habit of taking on two much responsibility
  • A habit of sacrificing for the benefit of others
  • A belief that we have to present ourselves as inferior and nonthreatening to others
  • A mindset that allows us to be frequently taken advantage of
  • A habit of landing in unbalanced relationships where we give more than we receive
  • Always feeling we are on the verge of “getting in trouble”
  • A fear that individuals and organizations with power will use it to abuse us
  • A fear that if we say something we’ll be told we’re wrong
  • A fear of taking risks
  • A habit of trying to remain invisible to protect ourselves
  • Difficulty with self-care
  • Difficulty with life skills
  • Feeling that we’re stuck in childhood no matter how old we are
  • Feeling powerless
  • Feeling loss
  • Feeling afraid
  • Feeling Worthless
  • Contemplating Suicide
  • Given the legacy above that is our inheritance from our narcissistic adoptive parents, we should not feel afraid of them and powerless. We should feel very, very angry with them. Our blood should boil at the thought of them and does.
    Adoptee's attempting to heal goes against the 18 years of fear conditioning where adoptive mother taught you that you are not allowed to be angry, never express anger and never show anger or you will be extremely punished. The anger that consumes me exists within me, 40 years of suppressed emotions is an enormous amount of energy to hold inside. 

Friday, June 23, 2017

ACE-Study Adverse-Childhood-Experiences


The "ACE" Study Adverse-childhood-experiences


Visit the site to read, download and use the ACE Study Questionaires to explore, utilize, categorize your own childhood adverse events to bring them out of the closet and give yourself validity from your awareness of what was inflicted on you in childhood. When we allow the truth of what we suffered in childhood to live in the present, we begin to comprehend our current coping and defense mechanisms from childhood that we use currently, but in-effective. Bring out our childhood abuse truth gives us courage to face the scar tissue forced on us as we refuse to betray ourselves any longer by hiding what our perpetrating parents did not do to prevent it, allowed abuse to happen or parents that intentionally perpetrated our abuse and now pretend to be the perfect grandparents. 

Childhood experiences, both positive and negative, have a tremendous impact on future violence victimization and perpetration, and lifelong health and opportunity. As such, early experiences are an important public health issue. Much of the foundational research in this area has been referred to as Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs).
The CDC-Kaiser Permanente Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study is one of the largest investigations of childhood abuse and neglect and later-life health and well-being.
The original ACE Study was conducted at Kaiser Permanente from 1995 to 1997 with two waves of data collection. Over 17,000 Health Maintenance Organization members from Southern California receiving physical exams completed confidential surveys regarding their childhood experiences and current health status and behaviors.
The CDC continues ongoing surveillance of ACEs by assessing the medical status of the study participants via periodic updates of morbidity and mortality data.
More detailed information about the study can be found in the links below or in “Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults,” published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine in 1998, Volume 14, pages 245–258.
All ACE questions refer to the respondent’s first 18 years of life.
  • Abuse
    • Emotional abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home swore at you, insulted you, put you down, or acted in a way that made you afraid that you might be physically hurt.
    • Physical abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home pushed, grabbed, slapped, threw something at you, or hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured.
    • Sexual abuse: An adult, relative, family friend, or stranger who was at least 5 years older than you ever touched or fondled your body in a sexual way, made you touch his/her body in a sexual way, attempted to have any type of sexual intercourse with you.
  • Household Challenges
    • Mother treated violently: Your mother or stepmother was pushed, grabbed, slapped, had something thrown at her, kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, hit with something hard, repeatedly hit for over at least a few minutes, or ever threatened or hurt by a knife or gun by your father (or stepfather) or mother’s boyfriend.
    • Household substance abuse: A household member was a problem drinker or alcoholic or a household member used street drugs.
    • Mental illness in household: A household member was depressed or mentally ill or a household member attempted suicide.
    • Parental separation or divorce: Your parents were ever separated or divorced.
    • Criminal household member: A household member went to prison.
  • Neglect1
    • Emotional neglect: Someone in your family helped you feel important or special, you felt loved, people in your family looked out for each other and felt close to each other, and your family was a source of strength and support.2
    • Physical neglect: There was someone to take care of you, protect you, and take you to the doctor if you needed it2, you didn’t have enough to eat, your parents were too drunk or too high to take care of you, and you had to wear dirty clothes.
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are common. Almost two-thirds of study participants reported at least one ACE, and more than one in five reported three or more ACEs.
The ACE score, a total sum of the different categories of ACEs reported by participants, is used to assess cumulative childhood stress. Study findings repeatedly reveal a graded dose-response relationship between ACEs and negative health and well-being outcomes across the life course.
As the number of ACEs increases so does the risk for the following*:

  • Alcoholism and alcohol abuse
  • Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
  • Depression
  • Fetal death
  • Health-related quality of life
  • Illicit drug use
  • Ischemic heart disease
  • Liver disease
  • Poor work performance
  • Financial stress
  • Risk for intimate partner violence
  • Multiple sexual partners
  • Sexually transmitted diseases
  • Smoking
  • Suicide attempts
  • Unintended pregnancies
  • Early initiation of smoking
  • Early initiation of sexual activity
  • Adolescent pregnancy
  • Risk for sexual violence
  • Poor academic achievement

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Emotional Abuse Permanent Impact on Adopted Child Brain


Emotional Abuse Permanent Impact on Adopted Child's Brain

The chronic cycle hyper-vigilance in adopted children through adoptees in adulthood begins with the primal wounding trauma, being forced apart and separated from the infant's biological mother at birth. The traumatized infant 
is shuffled in and out of foster care to be adopted by more deserving parents according to the false beliefs of American society. Where the adoptive mother has experienced personal traumas related to her own attempts at reproducing, she believes that adopting a baby is the cure for her infertility but ignores the monumental and time consuming task of psychological healing from her own traumas. The adoption takes place and the in the adoptive mother's extreme disappointment, she suffers "post-adoption depression" that is currently estimated at 64% of adopting mothers experience post-adoption depression. The depressed adoptive mother is now forced to live with her compulsive decision to act and use adoption to satisfy her infertility problem. 

The psychological state of anticipation, hope, combined with physically and mentally doing something to distract the infertile woman from her childless reality gave her temporary relief during the adoption process. When the adopted child is placed in her care, the weight of her denial falls heavily on her world as she is now stuck with another woman's offspring. What sounded great at the time is now a nightmare that was self created by acting impulsively and living in denial of adoption realities, that she can't take back for fear of social backlash as post adoption depression moves in to her life and head permanently. The biological child that she longed for, is replaced by a pretender infant, imposter child that belongs to someone else. 

It is impossible to pretend that you care when you are not compelled to naturally care for someone else's child for long periods of time. Even experienced babysitters often meet children that they do not get along with or enjoy. The new babysitter may not like the new child that she is babysitting for three hours, and will decline all future calls from that family as that particular child annoys her. The adoptive mother is stuck with a child that she does not know and does not feel any "instant connection" to the child. Being forced to care for another person's offspring will build resentment with each needy cry.
Some adoptive mothers feel antagonized, bitter and become hostile at the adopted child they feel no connection to. When adoptive mothers feel trapped, where they have no choice the adoptive mother will grow in discontent regarding the adopted child. The adoptive mother will negatively view, negatively evaluate and damage the adopted child's sense of self and self-esteem at the start of their life. Where feeling forced is being controlled and no good can ever come from false pretending relationship. 

For the adopted child, the adoptive mother's inability to care or have empathy toward the adopted child causes specific brain functions to develop (survival mechanisms) and retards other normal growth (social brain functions) to occur. The most common and chronic problem in traumatized adopted children is their constant arrousal states of hypervigilance. The adopted child's unconscious reaction to unconscious threats by caregivers that signify rejection, abandonment as the most important threat to one's survival is annihilation. Unsaid motivations by caregivers can never be completely concealed by the most convincing actors.

When a child is often scolded or threatened by his parents (emotional abuse) and /or when a child is structurally ignored or isolated by his parents (emotional neglect) we call this childhood emotional maltreatment (CEM).
CEM is the most common form of child abuse, however, CEM is also the most hidden, underreported and least studied form of child abuse. An important reason for this may be because that the consequences of CEM are underestimated (e.g. ‘Sticks and Stones may break bones, but words will never hurt me’). However, my thesis shows that CEM is related with a persistent negative impact on cognition and the brain.
We discovered that individuals that report CEM show differential structure and function of a brain area (the medial prefrontal cortex) that is crucial for role in responding to stress and thinking about yourself. Individuals with CEM also showed more activity in an area that signals threat (the amygdala) which may represent a persistent vigilance towards the detection of threat from others. These brain changes may underlie our other findings that individuals with CEM think more negatively about themselves and others. Negative thoughts can evoke negative thoughts and in new situations, which reinforces more negative memories. Due to this process, emotionally abused individuals may be more vulnerable to develop a depressive and/or anxiety disorder.
Our findings warrant scientific and political investments to increase societal awareness about the detrimental impact of CEM on cognition and the brain. Increased societal knowledge will hopefully lead to better awareness, reports, and subsequent interventions for individuals with CEM.

Self-Esteem Defined


Self-Esteem Defined

In sociology and psychologyself-esteem reflects a person's overall subjective emotional evaluation of his or her own worth. It is a judgment of oneself as well as an attitude toward the self. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs about oneself, (for example, "I am competent", "I am worthy"), as well as emotional states states, such as triumph, despair pride, and shame. Smith and Mackie (2007) defined it by saying "The self-concept is what we think about the self; self-esteem, is the positive or negative evaluations of the self, as in how we feel about it. Self-esteem is attractive as a social psychological construct because researchers have conceptualized it as an influential predictor of certain outcomes, such as academic achievement,happiness, satisfaction in marriage and relationships, and criminal behaviour. Self-esteem can apply specifically to a particular dimension (for example, "I believe I am a good writer and feel happy about that") or a global extent (for example, "I believe I am a bad person, and feel bad about myself in general"). Psychologists usually regard self-esteem as an enduring personality characteristic ("trait" self-esteem), though normal, short-term variations ("state" self-esteem) also exist. Synonyms or near-synonyms of self-esteem include: self-worth, self-regard, self-respect, and self-integrity. 

philosopher and psychologist, William James (1892). James identified multiple dimensions of the self, with two levels of hierarchy: processes of knowing (called the 'I-self') and the resulting knowledge about the self (the `Me-self'). Observation about the self and storage of those observations by the I-self create three types of knowledge, which collectively account for the Me-self, according to James. These are the material self, social self, and spiritual self. The social self comes closest to self-esteem, comprising all characteristics recognized by others. The material self consists of representations of the body and possessions, and the spiritual self of descriptive representations and evaluative dispositions regarding the self. This view of self-esteem as the collection of an individual's attitudes toward oneself remains today.

Development across lifespan

Experiences in a person's life are a major source of how self-esteem develops. In the early years of a child's life, parents have a significant influence on self-esteem and can be considered a main source of positive and negative experiences a child will have. Unconditional love from parents helps a child develop a stable sense of being cared for and respected. These feelings translate into later effects on self-esteem as the child grows older. Students in elementary school who have high self-esteem tend to have authoritative parents who are caring, supportive adults who set clear standards for their child and allow them to voice their opinion in decision making.
Although studies thus far have reported only a correlation of warm, supportive parenting styles (mainly authoritative and permissive) with children having high self-esteem, these parenting styles could easily be thought of as having some causal effect in self-esteem development. Childhood experiences that contribute to healthy self-esteem include being listened to, being spoken to respectfully, receiving appropriate attention and affection and having accomplishments recognized and mistakes or failures acknowledged and accepted. Experiences that contribute to low self-esteem include being harshly criticized, being physically, sexually or emotionally abused, being ignored, ridiculed or teased or being expected to be "perfect" all the time.
During school-aged years, academic achievement is a significant contributor to self-esteem development. A student consistently achieving success or consistently failing will have a strong academic effect on their individual self-esteem. Social experiences are another important contributor to self-esteem. As children go through school, they begin to understand and recognize differences between themselves and their classmates. Using social comparisons, children assess whether they did better or worse than classmates in different activities. These comparisons play an important role in shaping the child's self-esteem and influence the positive or negative feelings they have about themselves. As children go through adolescence, peer influence becomes much more important. Adolescents make appraisals of themselves based on their relationships with close friends. Successful relationships among friends are very important to the development of high self-esteem for children. Social acceptance brings about confidence and produces high self-esteem, whereas rejection from peers and loneliness brings about self-doubts and produces low self-esteem.
Adolescence shows an increase in self-esteem that continues to increase in young adulthood and middle age. A decrease is seen from middle age to old age with varying findings on whether it is a small or large decrease. Reasons for the variability could be because of differences in health, cognitive ability, and socioeconomic status in old age. No differences have been found between males and females in their development of self-esteem. Multiple cohort studies show that there is not a difference in the life-span trajectory of self-esteem between generations due to societal changes such as grade inflation in education or the presence of social media.
High levels of mastery, low risk taking, and better health are ways to predict higher self-esteem. In terms of personality, emotionally stable, extroverted, and conscientious individuals experience higher self-esteem.These predictors have shown us that self-esteem has trait-like qualities by remaining stable over time like personality and intelligence. Although, this does not mean it can not be changed. Hispanic adolescents have a slightly lower self-esteem than their black and white peers, but then slightly higher levels by age 30. African Americans have a sharper increase in self-esteem in adolescence and young adulthood compared to Whites. However, during old age, they experience a more rapid decline in self-esteem.


Shame can be a contributor to those with problems of low self-esteem. Feelings of shame usually occur because of a situation where the social self is devalued, such as a socially evaluated poor performance. A poor performance leads to higher responses of psychological states that indicate a threat to the social self namely a decrease in social self-esteem and an increase in shame. This increase in shame can be helped with self-compassion.

There are three levels of self-evaluation development in relation to the real self, ideal self, and the dreaded self. The real, ideal, and dreaded selves develop in children in a sequential pattern on cognitive levels.
  1. Moral Judgment Stages: Individuals describe their Real, Ideal, and Dreaded Selves with stereotypical labels, such as "nice" or "bad". Individuals describe their Ideal and Real Selves in terms of disposition for action or as behavioral habits. The Dreaded Self is often described as being unsuccessful or as having bad habits.
  2. Ego Development Stages: Individuals describe their Ideal and Real Selves in terms of traits that are based in attitudes as well as actions. The Dreaded Self is often described as having failed to meet social expectations or as self-centered.
  3. Self-Understanding Stages: Individuals describe their Ideal and Real Selves as having a unified identity or character. Descriptions of the Dreaded Self focus on a failure to live up to one's ideals or role expectations often because of real world problems.
This development brings with it increasingly complicated and encompassing moral demands. Level 3 is where individuals' self-esteem can suffer because they do not feel as though they are living up to certain expectations. This feeling will moderately effect one's self-esteem with an even larger effect seen when individuals believe they are becoming their Dreaded Self 

The three states

This classification proposed by Martin Ross distinguishes three states of self-esteem compared to the "feats" (triumph, honor, virtue) and the "anti-feats" (defeat, embarrassment, shame etc.) of the individuals.


The individual does not regard themselves as valuable or lovable. They may be overwhelmed by defeat, or shame, or see themselves as such, and they name their "anti-feat". For example, if they consider that being over a certain age is an anti-feat, they define themselves with the name of their anti-feat, and say, "I am old". They pity themselves. They insult themselves. They feel sorry. They may become paralyzed by their sadness.


The individual has a generally positive self-image. However, their self-esteem is also vulnerable to the perceived risk of an imminent anti-feat (such as defeat, embarrassment, shame, discredit), consequently they are often nervous and regularly use defense mechanisms. A typical protection mechanism of those with a Vulnerable Self-Esteem may consist in avoiding decision-making. Although such individuals may outwardly exhibit great self-confidence, the underlying reality may be just the opposite: the apparent self-confidence is indicative of their heightened fear of anti-feats and the fragility of their self-esteem. They may also try to blame others to protect their self-image from situations which would threaten it. They may employ defense mechanisms, including attempting to lose at games and other competitions in order to protect their self-image by publicly dissociating themselves from a 'need to win', and asserting an independence from social acceptance which they may deeply desire. In this deep fear of being unaccepted by an individual's peers, they make poor life choices by making risky choices.

Contingent vs. non-contingent

A distinction is made between contingent (or conditional) and non-contingent (or unconditional)   self-esteem.
Contingent self-esteem is derived from external sources, such as (a) what others say, (b) one's success or failure, (c) one's competence, or (d) relationship contingent self-esteem.
Therefore, contingent self-esteem is marked by instability, unreliability, and vulnerability. Persons lacking a non-contingent self-esteem are "predisposed to an incessant pursuit of self-value.However, because the pursuit of contingent self-esteem is based on receiving approval, it is doomed to fail. No one receives constant approval and disapproval often evokes depression. Furthermore, fear of disapproval inhibits activities in which failure is possible.
Non-contingent self-esteem is described as true, stable, and solid. It springs from a belief that one is "acceptable period, acceptable before life itself, ontologically acceptable". Belief that one is "ontologically acceptable" is to believe that one's acceptability is "the way things be without contingency". In this belief, as expounded by theologian Paul Tillich acceptability is not based on a person's virtue. It is an acceptance given "in spite of our guilt, not because we have no guilt".


Abraham Maslow states that psychological health is not possible unless the essential core of the person is fundamentally accepted, loved and respected by others and by her or his self. Self-esteem allows people to face life with more confidence, benevolence and optimism, and thus easily reach their goals and self-actualize.

Maternal Deprivation & Self-Esteem


The Maternal Deprivation & Self-Esteem

The reality for adopted children is depravity from where we belong, from who we belong and are relegated to be owned by society's idea of a more entitled couple with financial resources.  The selfish society that labels adoptees bastard, unworthy of voice, rights and opinions is propelled to keep adult adoptee's silenced. As adult adoptees hold the key to why all of the consequences from child adoption occur, we hold the answers that society refuses to acknowledge. Adoptees that refuse to live in denial are seeking answers to what has happened to us psychologically and physically that was directly caused by adoption.
The first, most serious and monumental deprivation adopted infants suffer after birth is the manifestations that accompany removing a newborn infant from their mother, the most psychologically catastrophic event in our existence that causes our defects. 
You learn the world from your mother's face. The biological mother's eyes especially, is the infant offspring's refuge, the genetic mirror where her infant confirms he's existence.        
From the doting reflection of his mother's eyes, the offspring baby draws his earliest, wordless lessons about connection, care, love and about how being ignored makes the good feeling disappear.
The biological mother's gaze, determines how you come to see yourself, your place in the world, and the moral nature of people around you. "The meeting eyes of love," novelist George Eliot called this all-important connection. According to Dan Siegal, a psychologist who specializes in early parental bonding, every child yearns for, and must have, this eye contact for healthy emotional development to occur. Siegal, who founded a new field of research known as interpersonal neurobiology (IPNB), has proved that the mother's gaze plays a critical role in how we develop empathy.
"Repeated tens of thousands of times in the child's life, these small moments of mutual rapport, serve to transmit the best part of our humanity "our capacity for love" from one generation to the next". 
Without genetic mirroring, children deprived of their biological mother's gaze feel disconnected from the mother, themselves, others in their world, later in life.                          Many of them will struggle to heal this disconnect in destructive ways, not knowing what is missing in them. Without the early conformation that we exist, learned from the mother's gaze we do not recognize ourselves or ourselves in our biological relatives, we do not develop or comprehend the language of empathy that genetic mirroring teaches the child. 
Being ignored, unaware of what is missing in our psychological wholeness, we attempt to   recreate the ignored state as being ignored is all that is familiar the infant-child-adult. The habitual recreation of abusive partners as we replace one abuser for another ranging from dysfunctional relationships to abusive habits to calm our anxieties. 
The emptiness caused by the biological mother's absence and the self destroying impulses that can never bring us bonding, acceptance, and nurturing that we constantly crave but reject from others.
Siegal states that that the visual, non-verbal interaction between mother and infant primes the moral organ in visceral ways. Through mirroring, continued attachment to biological mother assists the immature infant brain use the mature functions of the mother's brain to organize its own processes. "We learn to care literally, by observing the caring behavior of our mother toward us. By the age of seven months, these earliest attachments have led to specific organizational changes in an infant's behavior and brain function. Having found a secure base in the world, according to psychologist John Bowlby, the founder of attachment theory, the child learns emotional resilience. If the mother is responsive to the child's signals and interacts with sensitivity, a secure attachment will be formed, reinforcing the child's own positive emotional states and teaching him or her to modulate negative states. 
Adopted infants deprived of their biological mother's gaze, the area of the brain that coordinates social communication, empathic attunement, emotional regulation, and stimulus appraisal, the establishment of value and meaning, will be faulty. Adopted children are likely to develop "insecure attachment", loss of self-esteem and feelings of belonging. 
 Through the mirrored love in our biological parents' eyes, we learn surrender, devotion, and trust. The adopted child learns depravity, anxiety and self-hatred.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Embarrassment of the Adopted Child


Embarrassment of the Adopted Child

Adopted-Child-Embarrassment is an emotional state of intense feelings of discomfort with oneself, experienced when having a socially unacceptable act or condition witnessed by or revealed to others. The adopted child is embarrassed publicly in social situations where their lower social status is confirmed by others stating the child is "adopted" and not our real, biological or genetic offspring. Adoptive parent's fail to provide the adopted child with psychological privacy about the child's origins. The adoptive parent's perspective dominates their attitudes of adoption as a positive experience to them, but the adopted child's perspective regarding public exposure is ignored, freely giving away the privacy of the adopted child to anyone that asks about "the most serious detrimental experience of the adopted child's life" is freely given for public and social consumption, irregardless of the adopted child's perspective, dignity and embarrassment.    

In the stage of young childhood development, a young child has no cognitive awareness of verbal concepts, word definitions or the ability to understand of complex concepts. In young childhood a child relies on the primary caregiver's facial expressions, voice tones and inflections, attitudes, especially the parent's behavior - NOT words but how words are expressed. The parent's use of sentence structures and attempts to explain things are far beyond a child's capacity to comprehend. The child smiles and may nod their head, giving the parent the false impression that the child understands and comprehends what they are saying. The child may even be able to repeat the sentence back to the parent, as children memorize and copy  the behavior of their primary caregiver. Yet the young child has absolutely no idea or comprehension of "what" the parent's behaviors, words or sentence structures has meaning or can be labeled good or bad. The adopted child hears the "adoption story" that is created by the adoptive mother's perception, not the adoptive father's perception not in the biological mother's perception, not in the adoptive grandparent's perception and especially not in the adopted child'd perception. This story is created by, owned and narrated by the adoptive mother where she frames herself in the most positive light. The adoptive mother narrates her story over and over to the point that the adopted child has memorized it. But the child still does not understand it, comprehend it or have the cognitive awareness to agree, reject or object to the adoption story. The child simply smiles and nods giving the false impression that the child agrees and identifies with the adoptive mother's story.
Beginning in the adopted child's cognitive awareness stage, where the adopted child is learning to comprehend complex and complicated subjects. For the adopted child, becoming aware of what adoption means by textbook definition, and comprehending what adoption means to the person that is adopted is in contrast. The adoptive mother's chronic retelling of "her adoption story" now takes on a new dimension to the adopted child as the adopted child realizes their perspective is not included in it.
The adopted child's biological mother, father, siblings, grandparents and family are not included. The adopted child now realizes that their own perspective has been left out of the adoptive mother's adoption story. The realization that this adoption story has nothing to do with the adopted child is the reality for the adopted child's awareness. 

The adoptive mother's adoption story is now seen to the adopted child as embarrassing as it singles the child out and away from the biological family that adopted them. The story tells everyone that the adopted child was abandoned, making the adopted child feel shame and now it is destroying the adopted child's dignity and chipping away at the adopted child's adopted-child-identity. The only identity the adopted child has known is now a humiliating identity that is socially known to everyone. The adopted child wants nothing to do with adoption and has lost face socially.
The adopted child feels extreme embarrassment and shame when the adoptive mother and other's talk about her when she is in the room, on the adoptive mother is talking about the adopted child on the telephone and the adopted child hates it!  When they gossip, always talking about the adopted child  (as she hears them) or speaking to the adopted child, they discount the adopted child's identity by reminding them that they are adopted. AS the adopted child's perspective of being adopted is in complete contrast and conflict to the adoptive mother's perception of adoption where her desires, needs and demands were met by adopting a child.

The adopted child's loss of of honor and dignity is attacked by the adoptive mother and her social group on a daily basis. The chronic adopted child topic is never exhausted by them as they never seem to shut up about it. Always dissecting and analyzing the adopted child's behavior, attitude and lacking skills are scrutinized by the adoptive mother gossip which is always the embarrassing situation to the adopted child. Similar to shame, except that shame is experienced directly from the adoptive mother who attacks the adopted child as a disappointing person, not a situational behavior. Embarrassment is being caused by the constant gossiping actions of the adoptive mother and her social group that has no concept of the adopted child is actually an individual person that is worthy of privacy. The adoptive mother's selfish actions that she labels socially acceptable concern, the adoptee sees the adoptive mother's behavior as morally wrong.

Embarrassment Causes

Embarrassment can be personal, caused by unwanted attention to private matters or personal flaws or mishaps. Some causes of embarrassment stem from personal actions, such as being caught in a lie or in making a mistake, losing badly in a competition, or being caught performing bodily functions such as flatulence. In many cultures, being seen nude or inappropriately dressed is a particularly stressful form of embarrassment. Personal embarrassment can also stem from the actions of others who place the embarrassed person in a socially awkward situation—such as a parent showing one's baby pictures to friends, having someone make a derogatory comment about one's appearance or behaviour, discovering one is the victim of gossip, being rejected by another person humiliation, being made the focus of attention (e.g., birthday celebrants, newlyweds), or even witnessing someone else's embarrassment.
Personal embarrassment is usually accompanied by some combination of blushing, sweating, nervousness, stammering, and fidgeting. Sometimes the embarrassed person tries to mask embarrassment with smiles or nervous laughter, especially in etiquette situations. Such a response is more common in certain cultures, which may lead to misunderstanding. There may also be feelings of anger depending on the perceived seriousness of the situation, especially if the individual thinks another person is intentionally causing the embarrassment. There is a range of responses, with the most minor being a perception of the embarrassing act as inconsequential or even humorous, to intense apprehension or fear.
The idea that embarrassment serves an apology or appeasement function originated with Goffman (1967) who argued the embarrassed individual “demonstrates that he/she is at least disturbed by the fact and may prove worthy at another time”. Semin & Manstead (1982) demonstrated social functions of embarrassment whereby the perpetrator of knocking over a sales display (the ‘bad act’) was deemed more likable by others if he/she appeared embarrassed than if he/she appeared unconcerned – regardless of restitution behaviour (rebuilding the display). The capacity to experience embarrassment can also be seen as functional for the group or culture. It has been demonstrated that those who are not prone to embarrassment are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviour – for example, adolescent boys who displayed more embarrassment were found less likely to engage in aggressive/delinquent behaviours. Similarly, embarrassment exhibited by boys more likely to engage in aggressive/delinquent behaviour was less than one-third of that exhibited by non-aggressive boys (Ketlner et al. 1995). Thus proneness to embarrassment (i.e., a concern for how one is evaluated by others) can act as a brake on behaviour that would be dysfunctional for a group or culture.

Vicarious embarrassment

Vicarious embarrassment is an embarrassed feeling from observing the embarrassing actions of another person. People who rate themselves as more empathic are more likely to experience vicarious embarrassment. The effect is present whether or not the observed party is aware of the embarrassing nature of their actions, although awareness generally increases the strength of the felt vicarious embarrassment, as does an accidental (as opposed to intentional) action.

Monday, June 19, 2017

The Use of Self-Justification in Adoption



Self-justification describes how, when a person encounters cognitive dissonance, or a situation in which a person's behavior is inconsistent with their beliefs, that person tends to justify the behavior and deny any negative feedback associated with the behavior.

Cognitive dissonance

The need to justify our actions and decisions, especially the ones inconsistent with our beliefs, comes from the unpleasant feeling called cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs whenever a person holds two inconsistent cognitions. For example, "smoking will shorten the life which I wish to live for as long as possible" and yet "I smoke three packs a day".
Dissonance is bothersome in any circumstance but it is especially painful when an important element of self-concept is threatened. For instance, if the smoker considered himself a healthy person, this would cause a greater deal of dissonance than if he considered himself an unhealthy person because the dissonant action is in direct conflict with an image of himself. In this case, people who tried to stop smoking but failed start to think that smoking is not harmful as much as they thought.
Dissonance can result from an action dissonant with either a negative or positive concept. For example, Aronson showed that students who failed numerous times at a task showed evidence of dissonance when they later succeeded at the same task. Some even went to the extent of incorrectly changing answers in order to present a consistent image.
Steele argues that the main cause of dissonance is not necessarily the difference between actions and beliefs, but the resulting degradation of self-image. By not behaving in line with his beliefs, this may threaten his integrity. One method of reducing dissonance would then be to reaffirm his ‘goodness’. Researchers have shown that this reaffirmation is actually better at reducing dissonant feelings if it is in an unrelated area than a related one. For example, if a smoker is experiencing dissonance because he knows that smoking is bad for his health, he could reduce his dissonance by reminding himself that he is an environmentally friendly person and does a lot of good in reducing his carbon footprint. However, a reminder that he is a healthy person who exercises regularly is actually more likely to increase feelings of dissonance. In support of this idea, research shows that in low-threat situations, people with high self-esteem are less likely to engage in self-justification strategies than those with low self-esteem. It is possible that people with high self-esteem have more accessible positive thoughts about themselves that can successfully reduce dissonance. However, in high threat situations, these positive thoughts are not enough, and high self-esteem people do engage in self-justification strategies.


There are two self-justification strategies: internal self-justification (IS) and external self-justification (ES).
Internal self-justification refers to a change in the way people perceive their actions. It may be an attitude change, trivialization of the negative consequences or denial of the negative consequences. Internal self-justification helps make the negative outcomes more tolerable and is usually elicited by hedonistic dissonance. For example, the smoker may tell himself that smoking is not really that bad for his health.
In Adoption: The adoptive mother tells herself "the birth mother ABANDONED this infant" to avoid feeling GUILTY about taking the biological mother's child away. 
External self-justification refers to the use of external excuses to justify one's actions. The excuses can be a displacement of personal responsibility, lack of self-control or social pressures. External self-justification aims to diminish one's responsibility for a behavior and is usually elicited by moral dissonance. For example, the smoker might say that he only smokes socially and because other people expect him to. 
In Adoption: The adoptive mother tells all others, often, that "the child's mother abandoned him on the street", instead of the truth that the infant was forcibly taken away against the mother's protests. Where society believes the adoptive mother is "more entitled" than a poor, single mother that TEMPORARILY lacks financial resources in the present. Due to the social belief that financial resources provide superior adoptive parenting, The society bestows the "entitlement belief" on the adoptive mother, if you believe money is more important than human bonding. Although the biological mother is maternally bonded to her offspring forever making her superior.  

Insufficient justification

If people have too much external justification for their actions, cognitive dissonance will not occur, and thus, attitude change is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, when people cannot find external justification for their behavior, they must attempt to find internal justification – they reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes or behaviors.
The theory of insufficient justification has many applications in education and child rearing. A study by Aronson & Carlsmith illustrates the results of external rewards in the classroom. They told a classroom full of preschoolers not to play with an attractive toy, threatening half with a mild punishment and half with a severe punishment if they did play with it, and then left the room. None of the children played with the toy. When the researchers came back, they asked the children to rate the attractiveness of the toy. Those who had been threatened with severe punishment still rated it as very attractive; these children had large external justification for not playing with the toy, and so their attitudes had not changed. However, those who had only been threatened with a mild punishment rated the toy as significantly less attractive; without much external justification for not playing with the toy, they had to create internal justifications to reduce their dissonance. (The story of the fox and the grapes)
This study can be very useful to parents who use punishment to help teach their children good values. The milder the punishment used, the more children will have to develop internal justification for behaving well. Similarly, if educators want children to internalize their lessons and develop a love of learning, they must help the children find internal justifications for their schoolwork, and minimize externals rewards.
Related, "the hypocrisy induction" – a form of strong internal justification for changing attitudes and behaviors - has been used in recent decades to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. The hypocrisy induction is the arousal of dissonance by having individuals make statements that do not align with their own beliefs, and then drawing attention to the inconsistencies between what they advocated and their own behaviors, with the overall goal of leading individuals to more responsible behaviors. 
In 1991, Aronson and colleagues asked two groups of college students to compose a speech describing the dangers of HIV/AIDS and advocating the use of condoms during every sexual encounter. One group just composed the arguments; the other also recorded their arguments in front of a video camera that they were told was going to be seen by an auditorium of high school students. Additionally, half the students in each group were made mindful of their own failings to use condoms. The researchers found that the students who had made the video and thought about their own behaviors – they had the highest level of internal justification and thus the highest dissonance condition – were far more likely to buy condoms afterwards than the students in any other group. Those who only performed a single action, like composing the written arguments, were much more easily able to attribute what they were doing to external justification (i.e.- I’m doing this because the researcher told me to.) Furthermore, they found these results to be steady even several months after the study concluded.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

The Study of Infant Awareness of Caregiver inauthencitity


STUDY: How the Infant Knows You Are Lying 

The Development of Infant Detection of Inauthentic Emotion

By Eric A. Walle & Joseph J. Campos
Authenticity is an ideal we strive for in many Western-European and North American societies. We value the person who is sincere, who is straightforward, who is not manipulative, who strives to practice what he or she preaches, and, above all, is trustworthy. Lack of authenticity is usually considered socially undesirable and a mark of deviousness in social interaction. However, societies also sometimes encourage inauthenticity for the purpose of maintaining social harmony and smooth interpersonal interactions. For instance, we expect inappropriate emotions to be concealed (e.g., we are expected not to show disgust at a disfigured person, and the recipient of an undesirable gift is expected to show enthusiastic, but inauthentic, glee to the recipient). In many cases, societies prescribe the expression of emotions that are, in fact, the opposite of an individual’s true experience.
The study of authentic and inauthentic emotional communication is a central element for understanding social interactions. From a definitional perspective, we conceptualize inauthenticity as the display of an unfelt emotion or the deliberately manipulated manifestation of a felt one.1 In what follows, we highlight the importance of detecting inauthentic emotional communication for human development, review the existing empirical literature investigating authenticity, and describe a set of studies that investigate the development of infant detection of inauthentic emotion.

The Importance of Detecting Inauthentic Emotion

Authentic displays of emotion help provide the basis for reliable relationships in human interaction. Infant detection of authentic and inauthentic emotion displays is essential for helping to form positive, trusting relationships with others that will enable the infant to effectively navigate social contexts. Infants must be able to identify reliable individuals in the environment to reference for information, seek out when distressed, and from whom to learn social norms in order to develop into a competent social participant (see ). After all, security comes not only from provision of havens of safety and secure bases of exploration (), but also from the recognition by the child that the caregiver’s emotional signals are reliable and trustworthy, especially when the child encounters uncertainty. The child’s working model of attachment from past social and emotional experiences helps organize interpretation and understanding of future interactions (), and differences in such experiences have been found to differentially affect infant emotional development (e.g., ; Spinrad et al., 2007). Investigating the development of infant detection of inauthentic emotion is essential for understanding the whole story of how different emotional environments affect infant emotional development.

Detection of Inauthentic Emotion in Childhood

Much of early socialization is characterized by learning what, where, and when to display certain types of behavior. This is often characterized by certain display rules that adults are able to utilize with great ease (), but which young children have considerable difficulty. Children understand at 6-7 years of age the motivations for, and consequences of displaying an unfelt emotion (), and can produce such displays at around 6 years of age (), progressively improving during the elementary years into adulthood (). For example, found that 7-year-old children are able to spontaneously produce inauthentic smiles in response to receiving a boring toy. Of note is the child’s early understanding of a need to display unfelt emotions by 6 years of age (), even though the ability to convincingly produce such a display is lacking (). This suggests that detection of inauthenticity may precede inauthentic production.
A limitation of the above research is that it typically focuses on phenomena that are readily amenable to experimental manipulation and includes individuals who have a well-developed conceptual and symbolic level of mentation. Paradigms often use short stories read to the child, in which the child must identify a character’s internal state, determine how best for the character to behave, and how others will perceive the character. Though informative, research using school-aged children relies on paradigms demanding advanced cognitive and linguistic abilities to follow the plot of a story and verbalize a response. Infancy research calls for a different set of paradigms.

Detection of Inauthentic Emotion in Infancy

Infants are able to discern normative social interactions early in life. Extensive research by Tronick and colleagues has demonstrated infant sensitivity to situations in which social expectations are violated (e.g., ; for reviews, see ). Furthermore, research by  has found that infants are sensitive to the congruency of facial and vocal communication of emotion at 7 months of age, preferentially looking to a facial display of emotion that matches a vocalization of emotion. With these early capacities in mind, investigations of infant understanding of pretense and parent interactions may provide further insight into infant detection of inauthentic emotion. Infant understanding of pretense develops markedly between 15 and 24 months of age (see, ). When engaging in pretend behaviors, mothers demonstrate increased smiling and looking toward their infant () and infants are able to correctly identify pretend and real behaviors at as young as 2.5 years of age (). These experiments relied on infant facial reactions or explicit identification of the discrepant events. However, it is essential to observe not only whether the infant notices discrepant displays of emotion, but also how noticing this discrepancy affects and regulates the child’s instrumental behavior toward the emoting individual or the referent of the emotion. Highlighting this point is the research by , who found that although 2-year-old infants did not explicitly differentiate pretend and real eating behaviors, these infants exhibited more spontaneous swallowing and lip licking while viewing the real eating behavior. This suggests that infants may demonstrate detection of pretense when functional behavioral responses are analyzed.
Anecdotal and empirical reports in which infants did not behave as one would expect in response to adult emotion motivated the present investigation. For example, 18-month-old infants occasionally respond to adult emotions with opposite behavioral responses than would be predicted, such as laughing at a parent’s display of fear (M. D. Klinnert, personal communication, July 2007) or smiling at parental distress (). These peculiar responses are often dismissed as indicating that infants did not understand the emotion. We offer a different interpretation: these responses may have occurred because infants did not believe the sincerity of emotional the communication. Thus, it is possible that the ability to detect and respond to inauthentic emotion may develop around 18 months of age.

The Present Set of Studies

Our review of the literature demonstrates that research investigating the detection of inauthentic emotional communication has largely been done with adults, and what developmental research does exist has used preschool and school-aged children. Furthermore, existing developmental research has failed to investigate the ontogeny of how infant detection of such discrepancies regulates infant social behavior. Although the importance for accurately appreciating the authenticity of emotional communication is clear, a distinct gap in the literature exists in our understanding of how this important skill develops. In light of the existing developmental literature indicating that 18-month-old infants occasionally respond with unexpected behaviors to emotional communication, as well as emerging understanding of pretense at this age, the following research compared 16- and 19-month-old infants ability to detect inauthentic emotional communication.
Review of the adult literature has identified potential cues of, and strategies for, detecting inauthentic emotion displays. Three factors that differentiate an authentic from an inauthentic emotional display are: (1) the authentic display is contextually appropriate—one that fits the circumstances the perceiver of the display is encountering; (2) the authentic display is of the right intensity for the level of emotion called for under the circumstances—intense when the danger is intense, weak when the danger is weak, and intermediate when the threat is middling; and (3) the authentic display is conveyed unambiguously, without confound by a prior, simultaneous, or subsequent signal that “leaks” an alternative emotional message. A unique sample of infants were tested in three distinct paradigms in which one of the above cues was experimentally manipulated. Each paradigm was specifically designed so that an infant age group that detected the inauthentic emotion would demonstrate differential behavioral responding between emotion conditions. Thus, our paradigms are similar to those used in discriminatory behavior tasks (e.g.. discriminatory looking), in which infants either do or do not differ in behavior between targets. Age differences are determined by which age groups demonstrate the discriminatory behavior (not if one age group discriminates “more” than another). As a result, performance for each age group is essentially dichotomous (significant discrimination between conditions: yes or no); not to what degree discrimination exists. To emphasize, it was the differential behavioral responding between conditions within each age group, not “improvement” between age groups, which was of central interest to each study. As such, planned comparisons are used in each study to test our a priori hypotheses. 

Infant Sensitivity to Emotions in Context

The importance of utilizing contextual information to accurately appreciate and respond to emotional communication may be illustrated by the following example. While visiting a zoo an infant may identify her father’s display as fear (affect specificity) in response to a charging polar bear (referential specificity), but also notice that a secure Plexiglas barrier is present to prevent harm, and consequently smile and approach the glass to examine the animal. Thus, the infant has demonstrated a behavioral response opposite to the emotional communication concerning the danger of the referent, but sensitive to the context within which this information is provided. Such a response would indicate that the infant used cues other than emotional and referential communication, such as the significance of the emotion in the present context. Previous developmental research suggests that young children more accurately identify emotions based on situational causes and consequences. Although the existing literature investigating infant use of contextual versus expressive cues has primarily used static images of facial displays or vignettes, prior studies have not manipulated the relation between the emotion and the contextually relevant features of the environment within which the infant is actively participating.
Some evidence does hint that infants may be sensitive to contextual cues of emotion. A peculiar finding from Carolyn Zahn-Waxler and colleagues’ research investigating infant prosocial responding to distressed individuals provides one such instance. In this classic paradigm, the infant observes a caregiver or researcher hurt herself and express pain. Infant’s behavioral responding is then observed to determine whether the infant appreciated the other’s distress by responding with concern and prosocial action. This research has found that infants at 14 months of age respond to a distressed individual with concern and prosocial behaviors, and that these behaviors become more prevalent and specific to the individual’s distress during the second year of life (). However, of particular interest is a finding reported in the same study that 14- and 19-month-old infants were as likely to respond to adult distress with “empathic concern” as they were with “positive affect.” These responses of positive affect may signify that infants picked up on other features of the environment beyond the surface level features of the distress display. Thus, rather than failing the task, these infants may have actually exceeded the task by recognizing that the distress was simulated and appreciated the emotion as playful. The specific cue(s) the infants may have used to reach this conclusion remains unknown.3

Aims of Study 1

Study 1 examined whether 16- and 19-month-old infants are sensitive to the contextual congruency of an emotion, specifically parental distress, when cues in the environment provide evidence that the emotional display is not credible. This study utilized a variant of the classic Zahn-Waxler paradigm that was designed to measure infant responding to others’ distress. In our variation, infants observed their parent either perceptibly hit or miss her hand with a toy hammer. In both conditions parents displayed pain and distress following the hammer strike, and infant behavioral responding to parents’ distress was coded. It was hypothesized that infants would demonstrate more prosocial responses and expressions of concern after witnessing the parent hit her hand with the hammer, whereas infants witnessing the parent miss her hand with the hammer would display more positive affect and aggressive/playful behaviors toward the parent. Additionally, it was hypothesized that 19-month-old infants would demonstrate greater differential responding as a function of the perceived authenticity of the emotion display than 16-month-old infants.